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 11-08-2012, 08:26 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,282 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
We are not reproducing ourselves and we needed immigrant workers at least until the Great Recession. The Wall Street Journal says that Mexican immigration has slowed to a stop because the US economy has tanked.
That was according to PEW:
Quote:
"The net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed," says the report, which is based on an analysis of U.S. and Mexican government data by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center.
The standstill, according to the report, results from declining immigration from Mexico paired with a rising number of people returning south from the U.S. Those trends recently converged, and between 2005 and 2010 about as many Mexicans left the U.S. as flocked here.
Between 2005 and 2010, 1.4 million Mexicans migrated north of the border, fewer than half as many as in the previous five-year period. Meanwhile, the number of Mexicans and their children who returned to Mexico between 2005 and 2010 rose to 1.4 million, about double the number who went home between 1995 and 2000, the report said. These trends suggest the return flow to Mexico surpassed arrivals to the U.S. in 2010 and 2011, the report adds.
"The pluses and minuses have evened out," said John Pitkin, a demographer with private consultancy Analysis and Forecasting, Inc. in Cambridge, Mass. "As many forces are pulling these people to Mexico as pulling them to the U.S."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
My thoughts - USCIS already uses what are work permits for legal immigration and it would be more of the same for illegals to get something like that from an employer who wants to use them. That work permit and a work visa would allow them in the county for a temporary stay. Lots of countries have guest workers.
The laws are already in place, they simply aren't being used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
Lots of immigration outreach services such as Catholic Charities process on a daily basis these work permits already for a fee. They are called LCAs. In the event of another amnesty, the LCA would be necessary to fast track the illegals to a green card, just like last time. These are not work permits. Wink* Wink*
Most illegals really don't want citizenship here, they want the ability to work and provide for their family here and back home. So really no need for citizenship for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
Now if we all receive a national identity card needed for ANYTHING you would do, the USA would then begin to control illegal immigration. (Would someone explain why we need political correctness when we are trying to distinguish apples and oranges? Why should an illegal's entry information be secret?)

Wishful thinking I know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2012, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,149 posts, read 4,321,626 times
Reputation: 2641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
It was certain classes of aliens, not citizens (a free black man was not a citizen at the time he was considered an alien class). It wasn't until the 14th Amendment (1868) and the Naturalization Act of 1870 that Black Americans were given citizenship and became citizens. The states were able to deny residency to certain classes of aliens. To this day the states still deny residency to certain classes of aliens, those here on visitor visas, work visas, and illegally here.
Yes, sorry, used the wrong word. The states had the ability to deny residency to aliens/immigrants, not citizens. Citizens were guaranteed right of travel by the US constitution. And the federal government regulated citizenship, not immigration of "aliens".

Quote:
Yea, if you were to import the laws prior to the USC and the 14th Amendment and Naturalization Act of 1870, then the states could still deny certain classes of aliens from entering/residing in the state. The only people that would be allowed to live in a state then would be White citizens since no others were citizens. You have re-installed major restrictions of people from freely moving from one state to another.
The states COULD deny aliens from residing in their state, but it doesn't mean that they would deny them.

The first naturalization laws said only white men could be naturalized, but it didn't say that only white men could reside in the states. Which is why there were free black men living in states all over the north, long before the 14th amendment and the Supreme court ruling.

What you fail to recognize in regards to free blacks during that period. Had the federal government regulated immigration as they do today, then the slave-states could have told the northern states that they weren't allowed to have free blacks living there, because there would have been a single immigration policy applied to the whole country, and the southern states at one time outnumbered free states.

So, free blacks were actually the beneficiary of the old immigration system that gave the states authority to grant residency to non-citizens/aliens/immigrants. Had the south been able to impose its will in Washington to control immigration on a federal level in the 1840's, they most likely would have barred access to the Irish from immigrating here as well.

Quote:
Not if you were to implement the laws prior to 1870, which is what you are wanting to do to enable what you believe to be "open/free immigration". You refuse to accept that there has always been some restriction to both immigration and naturalization, which is what I stated in the beginning of the discussion, immigration laws go back to at least the 1400's. From 1606 through 1774 the immigrants into the colonies were mostly convicts sent from England and indentured servants. There were other nations still attempting to colonize other areas. These colonies some times became incorporated into the English/British colonies as treaties arose between the mother nations. These aliens to the English/British colonies were resident aliens (denizens) and were eventually afforded English/British citizenship provided they met the strict regulations as imposed by the English/British Parliament. In the middle 1700's, as these colonies grew, they became what are now the States.
I don't refuse to acknowledge that there wasn't 100% free immigration, I understand that there were limitations, and there should be limitations. But the immigration restrictions from then cannot even be remotely compared to the immigration laws of today. If you could compare immigration then and now. Back then, probably 95% of the people who wanted to come here, and could find a way to get here, could come here. Today, I would say less than 5% of the people who want to come here are allowed to come here.

And before you start talking about how the wealthy or the educated can still come here pretty easily. Keep in mind, the vast majority of immigrants during the 1800's, weren't even remotely rich or educated. They were the poor huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.

So to make any comparison of the immigration of the past to today's immigration, and pretending that they are in any way similar, is simply ridiculous.

Quote:
State residency does entitle them to anything the State offers, they would be state residents entitled to welfare, drivers license, etc.
No, non-citizens aren't guaranteed the same rights as citizens. For instance, non-citizens generally aren't allowed to vote. State residency simply isn't the same as being a citizen.

Quote:
What Scalia is saying: Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. For which I agree. What you are arguing is for federal law to be abolished when it comes to immigration. You want the state to choose to allow foreigners to become residents/citizens of the individual state. Thus then nullifies the P & I clause of the USC, basically removing the USC all together, and we become Europe.
Never did I say I wanted the states to be able to grant anyone citizenship. I said repeatedly that the states should not be able to grant anyone citizenship, without permission of Congress. As long as a person is not a citizen in say California, then they have no right to live anywhere but California. If they become a citizen, then they can live in any state in this country. That system does not work, which is why naturalization/citizenship was handed to Congress. Basically, all of the states should have to agree on who can become a citizen, since that citizenship affects all of the states.

What I argued, was that the states should be able to independently allow immigrants into their own territories as legal residents of that state. Which would not give them citizenship, and would only entitle them to live in that state, and no other. But that the federal government should also be able to impose immigration regulations of its own, that would overrule state immigration regulations, but should be focused on the areas in which the federal government is responsible. Such as national security, diplomacy, and trade.


The reason for my desire to change the immigration system. Is that I want to make this country better, I want to make other countries better, I want to provide people with more freedom of movement, I want to end or minimize the constant bickering over immigration policy that we have in this country, and I want to create an immigration policy that is applicable to any time in this nations history.


As I have mentioned before. Had we had the same immigration policy in the past, that we do today. My ancestors never would have been able to come to the United States to begin. Because they were poor uneducated Irish Catholics. They would have been the Hispanics of their day.

I find it ironic that the argument for why the federal government had to regulate immigration, was that California was unjustly limiting immigration. But in reality, the federal government put much stricter limits on immigration after it took over the immigration system. The federal government has consistently put limits on immigration, not made it more available.


When I look throughout our history, and the history of the world. You have to compare your immigration policy to my immigration policy, and how the world might have been different with each policy. So lets ask ourselves some questions in regards to history.


First question. Had the federal government never completely overtaken immigration, would we have more immigration or less immigration today?

Second question. Had the federal government controlled immigration from 1776 to 1865, would there have been any free blacks living in northern states? Would there have been any real ability for Southern blacks to escape slavery? Would we have ever had the Civil War when we did? Would there be more blacks living in this country now, or less?

Third question. When Nazi Germany was heavily restricting the rights of Jews in the 1930's, our federal government continued to put more restrictions on Jewish immigration. Had the individual states been allowed to regulate their own immigration, would the Jews have come to the United States to escape the holocaust?

Fourth question. When the Irish were starving to death from the potato famine. Would the Irish have come in greater or lesser numbers, had the federal government regulated all immigration in the 1840's?



My point is, there is no time in American history, that immigration policy was a good thing because it was controlled by the federal government. Not only would the country be better off if the states were able to regulate immigration, with minimal interference from the federal government(naturalization, diplomacy, trade, national security). But the entire world would be better off today if the federal government would have never seized control of immigration.

I just don't see any good at all that has come out of the federal government taking control of immigration. It could have handled the issues in California by preventing California from placing "undue burdens" on immigrants, or handing out federal VISA's and residency as a supplement to state residency. There was absolutely no reason for it to take over the entire system. And in my eyes, the change to the system has been almost entirely harmful to not only this country, but basically the entire world.


Look, I am not asking to change this country radically. I am asking to return this country to exactly the same immigration that the framers of our constitution created as a result of that constitution. I am asking to return to the immigration system that this country had over the first 100 years of our existence. I am asking to return this country to the beacon of freedom that it once was. And to give people in this country and all over the world more freedom and opportunity.

If you stop with the rhetoric and really think about what I'm saying, then you would realize that my system must necessarily be better than the system we have today. Because at worst, all of the states adopt exactly the same policies we have today with the federal immigration system. And at best, each state allows in various levels of immigration that they believe will benefit their own state, and which will only directly affect their own state. So some states will clamp down more on immigration, and some states will expand immigration. All of the states get what they want, so all of the states win.

Under our system, 24 states lose and 26 states win. Why is that a better system?

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-08-2012 at 11:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2012, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,149 posts, read 4,321,626 times
Reputation: 2641
Look, I am effectively a libertarian. I am for freedom, I am for states' rights. Not because the states always get it right. They don't. But because neither does the federal government. And at least the states act as censors to each other. If your state is doing something wrong, there are 49 other states to go to. When the federal government is doing something wrong, your only option is to leave the country, and for most people, that is simply impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 08:07 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,282 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
No, non-citizens aren't guaranteed the same rights as citizens. For instance, non-citizens generally aren't allowed to vote. State residency simply isn't the same as being a citizen.

Never did I say I wanted the states to be able to grant anyone citizenship. I said repeatedly that the states should not be able to grant anyone citizenship, without permission of Congress. As long as a person is not a citizen in say California, then they have no right to live anywhere but California. If they become a citizen, then they can live in any state in this country. That system does not work, which is why naturalization/citizenship was handed to Congress. Basically, all of the states should have to agree on who can become a citizen, since that citizenship affects all of the states.

What I argued, was that the states should be able to independently allow immigrants into their own territories as legal residents of that state. Which would not give them citizenship, and would only entitle them to live in that state, and no other. But that the federal government should also be able to impose immigration regulations of its own, that would overrule state immigration regulations, but should be focused on the areas in which the federal government is responsible. Such as national security, diplomacy, and trade.
Non-citizen residents ARE allowed to vote in State elections for State or local elections, they are only denied the privilege on the National level for national elections. Therefor by allowing illegals to become State residents they will have the added power to change the politics of that state. States should not be able to allow foreign immigrants into their territory for the simple reason I just gave. The Feds do impose immigration regulations (Articles of Confederation Article 4; USC A1S8C3, Federalist Papers #42), which is why illegals are illegal and can not become residents of a state.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The reason for my desire to change the immigration system. Is that I want to make this country better, I want to make other countries better, I want to provide people with more freedom of movement, I want to end or minimize the constant bickering over immigration policy that we have in this country, and I want to create an immigration policy that is applicable to any time in this nations history.
But you are limiting the "residents" freedom of movement to being of only one state.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If you stop with the rhetoric and really think about what I'm saying, then you would realize that my system must necessarily be better than the system we have today. Because at worst, all of the states adopt exactly the same policies we have today with the federal immigration system. And at best, each state allows in various levels of immigration that they believe will benefit their own state, and which will only directly affect their own state. So some states will clamp down more on immigration, and some states will expand immigration. All of the states get what they want, so all of the states win.
I have thought about what you have said, I have countered your claims, I have stated no rhetoric. I simply don't agree with your ideals and have shown them to not really help in any way. If we need workers here, we have numerous visa categories they can obtain; worker visas, immigration visas, visitor visas. Some of these visas are employer applied, meaning that the employer must apply for the visa to bring someone in, why s it that the employers aren't doing this? The H2A visa alone has no cap limits and can virtually bring every person outside of the US in provided there were enough employers needing them.

To simply allow open immigration would overwhelm the system, we wouldn't be able to keep up with demand and prices for everything would greatly increase as supplies of everything would be limited. It would take numerous years to catch up to demand if ever. Sure somethings would eventually catch up and become cheaper, but not everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Look, I am effectively a libertarian. I am for freedom, I am for states' rights. Not because the states always get it right. They don't. But because neither does the federal government. And at least the states act as censors to each other. If your state is doing something wrong, there are 49 other states to go to. When the federal government is doing something wrong, your only option is to leave the country, and for most people, that is simply impossible.
Tell me something I don't already know. States rights are still there, some of those rights have been given up simply by being part of the union. States don't always get it right, neither do the feds, I agree. Why is the only option to leave the country if the feds are doing something wrong? Why not change it by simply voting? Its what "residents" of a state would do while living in the state, they will bring with them their ideals, mostly socialistic forms of govt (which is the issues right now, i.e. welfare).

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 11-09-2012 at 08:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,149 posts, read 4,321,626 times
Reputation: 2641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Non-citizen residents ARE allowed to vote in State elections for State or local elections, they are only denied the privilege on the National level for national elections. Therefor by allowing illegals to become State residents they will have the added power to change the politics of that state. States should not be able to allow foreign immigrants into their territory for the simple reason I just gave. The Feds do impose immigration regulations (Articles of Confederation Article 4; USC A1S8C3, Federalist Papers #42), which is why illegals are illegal and can not become residents of a state.
Wrong, they can only vote in state elections if that state allows them to vote in state elections. I don't believe that any states in this country currently allow non-citizens to vote in state elections.

Right of foreigners to vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Right of foreigners to vote in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But if a state believes that non-citizens should have the right to vote on state elections, why should someone in another state care? The federal government has already made it illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections.

Quote:
But you are limiting the "residents" freedom of movement to being of only one state.
I am limiting them far less than they are already limited. It is true that many residents of a state will be prohibited freedom of movement to other states in this country, because they will only have state residency. But, the alternative(what we have now) is that they aren't allowed to set foot in this country at all.

If you were a Mexican, and I gave you two choices.... A) You can't come to America at all, or B) You can come to America, but you have to stay in California... Which would you choose?

Obviously I want as much freedom of movement as possible. But I understand that people will be opposed to completely open immigration, and rightfully so.... My plan is simply a pragmatic solution to the issue of immigration. It says, let the states handle it. Because if the states handle it, then overall we will have more immigration and more freedom of movement than we have now, and less people fighting about it.

Will it be perfect? No. But it will be a step in the right direction.

Quote:
Tell me something I don't already know. States rights are still there, some of those rights have been given up simply by being part of the union. No states don't always get it right, neither do the feds, I agree. Why is the only option to leave the country if the feds are doing something wrong? Why not change it by simply voting?
You are missing my point. Because you don't seem to understand the situation.

Democracy is no guarantee of a good outcome. The states are democracies, but the states rarely get it right. The national government derives itself from democracy, but why would you believe that the national government does a better job than the states? Does the sheer size of a country make for better government? Does France have a better functioning government than Denmark?

My point is, the states get it wrong all the time, and our federal government gets it wrong all the time. So the question is, how do you create a system that minimizes the amount of harm that can be done when democracy gets things wrong? And what is the best way to steer the government in a direction that is truly helpful to the people of this country? Is the answer really just to go out and vote? We have already been voting, and what has it done? Do you like the results of the 2012 elections?


In my view, the best way to minimize the harmful effects of government, is to attempt to prevent a monopoly of government. We need multiple governments sitting side-by-side, with freedom of movement of the people to go to the government that allows them the most freedom and best opportunities. We need governments to compete with each other, which helps the governments themselves to operate more efficiency, for the betterment of the people. We need a system where people "vote with their feet", when their government is doing things wrong.

For many years now, a great bulk of Californians have been leaving that state to go elsewhere. They go to states with lower taxes, and lower costs of living. California has been going bankrupt in recent years, and in this election has raised their already high taxes even higher, to pay for their generous welfare state. California will fail, and it needs to fail, and the only way it can fail is by giving people the option to leave California for better-run and more competitive states.

The federal government has been taking us in the same path as California. But if the United States is failing, if it is a floundering ship, where can we go?


When the states get it wrong, we still have choices. When the federal government gets it wrong, we have no choices.

In my previous examples, I was trying to show you that the federal government got it wrong when it comes to immigration, on multiple occasions. Had the states been able to regulate their own immigration, like they did for pretty much the first 100 years of this nations history. Then not only would this country be better off today, but I think the world would be better off today. Such as my mention about how the Jews were prevented from coming to this country before and during the holocaust.


It is a fallacy to believe that the federal government does anything at all better than the states. So why exactly do you want a completely centralized state?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 09:48 AM
 
1,302 posts, read 1,244,063 times
Reputation: 1004
Default This topic is a 3rd rail

What amazes me is that I messaged to this forum that the US has one million new foreign citizens each year legally admitted into US and not a peep. WAKE UP!

Besides legal immigration, it's a national policy of Mexico and other countries to allow their nationals to enter this country illegally. They are exporting excess population. The numbers get serious, fast.

The numbers of non-American born citizens and illegals, especially in urban areas, saturates those areas.

All the federal government cares about is that a huge influx of aliens doesn't produce Balkanization. The US doesn't want people getting together and living inside its borders with allegiances to a foreign state or culture.

But, the numbers of both legal and illegals mean that the old melting pot idea cannot work because the numbers are just too big. English becomes a second language. In Los Angeles, non-hispanics are a minority in the city.

I saw on the cable TV today that, after their licking, the GOP is thinking about considering immigration reform. Trust me, from someone who worked in the system, our immigration laws are a dog's dinner worst than the tax code. Lots of loop holes.

Ever drive around looking for a parking space but seeing partly empty permit lots? Permits exclude, they don't include. Bringing in the illegals under some kind of visa plan is like a parking permit. No permit, no work.

Please don't fight reform. Fight to control reform.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 07:22 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,282 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I am limiting them far less than they are already limited. It is true that many residents of a state will be prohibited freedom of movement to other states in this country, because they will only have state residency. But, the alternative(what we have now) is that they aren't allowed to set foot in this country at all.
Sure they are allowed to provided they obtain permission. Remember, even the UN agrees that everybody has the right to leave their home nation, but what they don't have a right to is to enter another nation without its authorization. I suggest you learn of the immigration laws starting from 1400's, England's to be exact since our laws are mostly basic English Common Laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If you were a Mexican, and I gave you two choices.... A) You can't come to America at all, or B) You can come to America, but you have to stay in California... Which would you choose?
Spain! Why would I want to be limited to only CA? At least in Spain I can go anywhere in Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Obviously I want as much freedom of movement as possible. But I understand that people will be opposed to completely open immigration, and rightfully so.... My plan is simply a pragmatic solution to the issue of immigration. It says, let the states handle it. Because if the states handle it, then overall we will have more immigration and more freedom of movement than we have now, and less people fighting about it.
NO, you want the ability to increase labor supply somehow thinking it will result in lower costs for service and product. If the states handle it you limit the freedom of movement and require citizenship checks by other states for simply visiting or traveling through. This is what the EU does, they check your passport for your status for anything and everything you do. The law enforcement over their simply need ask for it and if you don't produce your ID card or Passport they can detain you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Will it be perfect? No. But it will be a step in the right direction.
Its only "a step in the right direction" to you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
You are missing my point. Because you don't seem to understand the situation.
Oh I understand the situation, my wife was an immigrant, she is now a US Citizen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Democracy is no guarantee of a good outcome. The states are democracies, but the states rarely get it right. The national government derives itself from democracy, but why would you believe that the national government does a better job than the states? Does the sheer size of a country make for better government? Does France have a better functioning government than Denmark?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
My point is, the states get it wrong all the time, and our federal government gets it wrong all the time. So the question is, how do you create a system that minimizes the amount of harm that can be done when democracy gets things wrong? And what is the best way to steer the government in a direction that is truly helpful to the people of this country? Is the answer really just to go out and vote? We have already been voting, and what has it done? Do you like the results of the 2012 elections?
So if you don't get what you want then Democracy is wrong....so says the minority. Do I like the results of the 2012 elections? Some yes, some no. Most don't effect me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
In my view, the best way to minimize the harmful effects of government, is to attempt to prevent a monopoly of government. We need multiple governments sitting side-by-side, with freedom of movement of the people to go to the government that allows them the most freedom and best opportunities. We need governments to compete with each other, which helps the governments themselves to operate more efficiency, for the betterment of the people. We need a system where people "vote with their feet", when their government is doing things wrong.
There's those key words again: "In my view". We don't have a monopoly of govt. Govts do compete with one another, the USA competes with China all the time. I thought multiple govts sitting side-by-side was the UN,; but what do I know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
For many years now, a great bulk of Californians have been leaving that state to go elsewhere. They go to states with lower taxes, and lower costs of living. California has been going bankrupt in recent years, and in this election has raised their already high taxes even higher, to pay for their generous welfare state. California will fail, and it needs to fail, and the only way it can fail is by giving people the option to leave California for better-run and more competitive states.
A temp 1/4% tax hike on sales tax? Funny, it has been higher in the past. Pretty much all states do small percentage tax increases on occasion. CA welfare is really no different then any other states welfare, the differences lie in the qualifications, who qualifies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The federal government has been taking us in the same path as California. But if the United States is failing, if it is a floundering ship, where can we go?
Any place that will allow you to enter and live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
When the states get it wrong, we still have choices. When the federal government gets it wrong, we have no choices.
What is the definition of the "feds getting it wrong"? What have they gotten wrong to require "voting with ones feet" and leaving the US?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
In my previous examples, I was trying to show you that the federal government got it wrong when it comes to immigration, on multiple occasions. Had the states been able to regulate their own immigration, like they did for pretty much the first 100 years of this nations history. Then not only would this country be better off today, but I think the world would be better off today. Such as my mention about how the Jews were prevented from coming to this country before and during the holocaust.
I know what you were trying to show, but it is only in "your view", obviously not mine or the majorities view. The St Louis was bound for Cuba, not the US. Jews were not prevented from coming to the US prior or during the holocaust. Over 27,000 entered per year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,149 posts, read 4,321,626 times
Reputation: 2641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Sure they are allowed to provided they obtain permission. Remember, even the UN agrees that everybody has the right to leave their home nation, but what they don't have a right to is to enter another nation without its authorization. I suggest you learn of the immigration laws starting from 1400's, England's to be exact since our laws are mostly basic English Common Laws.
I am not disagreeing with you, I also agree that someone does not have the right to enter a nation without its authorization. But, you fail to realize that for the first 100 years of this country's existence, the states effectively had almost unlimited power to regulate their own immigration. My argument is that that was a better system than we have now. And I believe the federal government needs to back off, and only regulate immigration from the point of view of trade, diplomacy, and national security.

Why exactly is it a good thing that the federal government regulates all immigration? I'm not talking citizenship here, just immigration.

As I said before, had the federal government regulated immigration in the 1840's, like it does now. I can almost guarantee you that my Irish ancestors would have been barred from immigrating to this country. Why do you believe that a system where the federal government controls both immigration and citizenship, is better than a system where states regulate immigration, and the federal government regulates citizenship?

Quote:
Spain! Why would I want to be limited to only CA? At least in Spain I can go anywhere in Europe.
Wrong, if you are a non-citizen living in Spain, you are not guaranteed the right to travel anywhere in Europe. You are only guaranteed this right, if you are a citizen of Spain.

Take for instance foreigners living in Sweden. There is something called the "love bridge"(oresund bridge) between Malmo, Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark.

The 'Love Bridge' for Immigrants Between Sweden and Denmark | PRI's The World

Denmark has very strict immigration laws, and even though Denmark and Sweden are both in the European Union, people who are living in Sweden but who are not citizens of Sweden are not given right of travel between Denmark and Sweden.

The love bridge is called that, because many men who live in Denmark will travel across the bridge to see their wives and girlfriends in Sweden, because those women are not allowed to live in Denmark, since they are not EU citizens.

Quote:
NO, you want the ability to increase labor supply somehow thinking it will result in lower costs for service and product. If the states handle it you limit the freedom of movement and require citizenship checks by other states for simply visiting or traveling through. This is what the EU does, they check your passport for your status for anything and everything you do. The law enforcement over their simply need ask for it and if you don't produce your ID card or Passport they can detain you.
First, increased labor supply would result in lower costs for goods and services. Just like everyone understands that the cost of lettuce would skyrocket if we had no illegal immigrants already living and working in this country.

Secondly, no where did I say that I wanted the states to put up checkpoints, or to require any sort of passport. I believe that the immigration system could effectively work EXACTLY the way it does now. When an immigrant attempts to work in another state, the federal government or the states should be required to check to make sure that he can legally work in that state. Moreover, if an immigrant was pulled over by the police, and he is in that state illegally. Then could be deported back to his home country or back to the state in which he has residency. There is no reason to change that system whatsoever. The only change is that the states would allow in immigrants as residents of that state, if they chose to. And if immigrants are found somewhere they aren't supposed to be, the federal government could impose fines on those individuals who are breaking the laws, or could impose fines on the states where the immigrants have residency.

Quote:
There's those key words again: "In my view". We don't have a monopoly of govt. Govts do compete with one another, the USA competes with China all the time. I thought multiple govts sitting side-by-side was the UN,; but what do I know.
The US government may compete with other nations, but the US government also constantly throws up protectionist policies(tariffs/sanctions/etc) to prevent competition. While aggressively protecting its access to markets and resources through our militarism. The US government competing with foreign governments is obviously nothing remotely similar to a "free market". It is about as fixed a market as there could ever be.

Quote:
Any place that will allow you to enter and live.
Where is that exactly? Do you think most Americans will be able to immigrate to Canada? Canada will only let you in if you are highly skilled or have money. Can Americans go to Mexico? Even though Mexico is relatively poor, they tend to have more restrictions to immigration than even Canada. Hell, African and Asian countries tend to be very poor, but they are even harder to immigrate to than anywhere else in the world. Do you think they are going to let you live in China? North Korea? Japan? Nope, nope, and nope.

The reality is that the vast majority of the people are trapped in this country. And at least if government was more on the state level, we would have 50 different choices. Under your system, the majority of us would simply have no choices at all. And if your immigration restrictions were adopted by every single country, then we would really be ****ed.

Quote:
What is the definition of the "feds getting it wrong"? What have they gotten wrong to require "voting with ones feet" and leaving the US?
What haven't they gotten wrong? Do you think the Vietnam war was good? Do you think the draft was good? Do you think the Iraq war was good? Do you think the bailout was good? Do you think the federal reserve is good? Do you think the patriot act was good? Do you think the federal government denying citizens habeus corpus is good? Do you think the confiscation of your income to hand out to foreign dictators in countries all over the word, is good? Do you think a $16 trillion national debt is good? Do you think being forced into Obamacare is good? Do you think social security is good? Do you think subsidies for ethanol are good? Do you think prohibition and criminalization of marijuana is good? Do you think prohibiting oil companies from drilling in ANWAR and the gulf coast is good? Do you think federal subsidization of abortion is good?

What is it exactly that you think the federal government does right?

Quote:
Jews were not prevented from coming to the US prior or during the holocaust. Over 27,000 entered per year.
There were quotas in place that restricted the amount of Jews that could come here. And as things got worse in Europe, we actually tightened those quotas even more. Please, go educate yourself.

United States Policy Toward Jewish Refugees, 1941-1952

While some American activists sincerely intended to assist refugees, serious obstacles to any relaxation of US immigration quotas included public opposition to immigration during a time of economic depression, xenophobia, and antisemitic feelings in both the general public and among some key government officials. Once the United States entered World War II, the State Department practiced stricter immigration policies out of fear that refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany.


It is ridiculous for you to defend the actions of our government. And I guarantee you that if the states had still been able to regulate immigration prior and during WWII, many many many more refugees from Europe would have come to the United States, and would have been saved from the holocaust and its mass murder. So don't you dare defend it.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-09-2012 at 11:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 05:58 AM
 
9,243 posts, read 7,101,613 times
Reputation: 2199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Yes, sorry, used the wrong word. The states had the ability to deny residency to aliens/immigrants, not citizens. Citizens were guaranteed right of travel by the US constitution. And the federal government regulated citizenship, not immigration of "aliens".



The states COULD deny aliens from residing in their state, but it doesn't mean that they would deny them.

The first naturalization laws said only white men could be naturalized, but it didn't say that only white men could reside in the states. Which is why there were free black men living in states all over the north, long before the 14th amendment and the Supreme court ruling.

What you fail to recognize in regards to free blacks during that period. Had the federal government regulated immigration as they do today, then the slave-states could have told the northern states that they weren't allowed to have free blacks living there, because there would have been a single immigration policy applied to the whole country, and the southern states at one time outnumbered free states.

So, free blacks were actually the beneficiary of the old immigration system that gave the states authority to grant residency to non-citizens/aliens/immigrants. Had the south been able to impose its will in Washington to control immigration on a federal level in the 1840's, they most likely would have barred access to the Irish from immigrating here as well.



I don't refuse to acknowledge that there wasn't 100% free immigration, I understand that there were limitations, and there should be limitations. But the immigration restrictions from then cannot even be remotely compared to the immigration laws of today. If you could compare immigration then and now. Back then, probably 95% of the people who wanted to come here, and could find a way to get here, could come here. Today, I would say less than 5% of the people who want to come here are allowed to come here.

And before you start talking about how the wealthy or the educated can still come here pretty easily. Keep in mind, the vast majority of immigrants during the 1800's, weren't even remotely rich or educated. They were the poor huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.

So to make any comparison of the immigration of the past to today's immigration, and pretending that they are in any way similar, is simply ridiculous.



No, non-citizens aren't guaranteed the same rights as citizens. For instance, non-citizens generally aren't allowed to vote. State residency simply isn't the same as being a citizen.



Never did I say I wanted the states to be able to grant anyone citizenship. I said repeatedly that the states should not be able to grant anyone citizenship, without permission of Congress. As long as a person is not a citizen in say California, then they have no right to live anywhere but California. If they become a citizen, then they can live in any state in this country. That system does not work, which is why naturalization/citizenship was handed to Congress. Basically, all of the states should have to agree on who can become a citizen, since that citizenship affects all of the states.

What I argued, was that the states should be able to independently allow immigrants into their own territories as legal residents of that state. Which would not give them citizenship, and would only entitle them to live in that state, and no other. But that the federal government should also be able to impose immigration regulations of its own, that would overrule state immigration regulations, but should be focused on the areas in which the federal government is responsible. Such as national security, diplomacy, and trade.


The reason for my desire to change the immigration system. Is that I want to make this country better, I want to make other countries better, I want to provide people with more freedom of movement, I want to end or minimize the constant bickering over immigration policy that we have in this country, and I want to create an immigration policy that is applicable to any time in this nations history.


As I have mentioned before. Had we had the same immigration policy in the past, that we do today. My ancestors never would have been able to come to the United States to begin. Because they were poor uneducated Irish Catholics. They would have been the Hispanics of their day.

I find it ironic that the argument for why the federal government had to regulate immigration, was that California was unjustly limiting immigration. But in reality, the federal government put much stricter limits on immigration after it took over the immigration system. The federal government has consistently put limits on immigration, not made it more available.


When I look throughout our history, and the history of the world. You have to compare your immigration policy to my immigration policy, and how the world might have been different with each policy. So lets ask ourselves some questions in regards to history.


First question. Had the federal government never completely overtaken immigration, would we have more immigration or less immigration today?

Second question. Had the federal government controlled immigration from 1776 to 1865, would there have been any free blacks living in northern states? Would there have been any real ability for Southern blacks to escape slavery? Would we have ever had the Civil War when we did? Would there be more blacks living in this country now, or less?

Third question. When Nazi Germany was heavily restricting the rights of Jews in the 1930's, our federal government continued to put more restrictions on Jewish immigration. Had the individual states been allowed to regulate their own immigration, would the Jews have come to the United States to escape the holocaust?

Fourth question. When the Irish were starving to death from the potato famine. Would the Irish have come in greater or lesser numbers, had the federal government regulated all immigration in the 1840's?



My point is, there is no time in American history, that immigration policy was a good thing because it was controlled by the federal government. Not only would the country be better off if the states were able to regulate immigration, with minimal interference from the federal government(naturalization, diplomacy, trade, national security). But the entire world would be better off today if the federal government would have never seized control of immigration.

I just don't see any good at all that has come out of the federal government taking control of immigration. It could have handled the issues in California by preventing California from placing "undue burdens" on immigrants, or handing out federal VISA's and residency as a supplement to state residency. There was absolutely no reason for it to take over the entire system. And in my eyes, the change to the system has been almost entirely harmful to not only this country, but basically the entire world.


Look, I am not asking to change this country radically. I am asking to return this country to exactly the same immigration that the framers of our constitution created as a result of that constitution. I am asking to return to the immigration system that this country had over the first 100 years of our existence. I am asking to return this country to the beacon of freedom that it once was. And to give people in this country and all over the world more freedom and opportunity.

If you stop with the rhetoric and really think about what I'm saying, then you would realize that my system must necessarily be better than the system we have today. Because at worst, all of the states adopt exactly the same policies we have today with the federal immigration system. And at best, each state allows in various levels of immigration that they believe will benefit their own state, and which will only directly affect their own state. So some states will clamp down more on immigration, and some states will expand immigration. All of the states get what they want, so all of the states win.

Under our system, 24 states lose and 26 states win. Why is that a better system?
You have to understand we was a small country less populated, we had an industrial revolution. There was lots of work & cheap land. Many came here legally whatever the law was. They did not illegally come here.

What you want is open border or a Robin hood scenario.

Fact is everyone can't come here that wants to. Its a fact of life.
Everyone can't be rich another fact of life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2012, 08:05 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,713,282 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Wrong, if you are a non-citizen living in Spain, you are not guaranteed the right to travel anywhere in Europe. You are only guaranteed this right, if you are a citizen of Spain.

Take for instance foreigners living in Sweden. There is something called the "love bridge"(oresund bridge) between Malmo, Sweden and Copenhagen, Denmark.

The 'Love Bridge' for Immigrants Between Sweden and Denmark | PRI's The World

Denmark has very strict immigration laws, and even though Denmark and Sweden are both in the European Union, people who are living in Sweden but who are not citizens of Sweden are not given right of travel between Denmark and Sweden.

The love bridge is called that, because many men who live in Denmark will travel across the bridge to see their wives and girlfriends in Sweden, because those women are not allowed to live in Denmark, since they are not EU citizens.
Let me point out your key words: only EU citizens can live in Denmark. Now let me explain how the EU works; If I live in Spain on a work visa, I can still travel throughout the EU, I would be limited to working in Spain. Your scenario of CA would limit me to not only living and working only in CA but it would also limit my travel to only CA. At least in Spain I can go to Portugal, France, etc.

Just so you know, my wife immigrated from Portugal, I have lived in Germany, Belgium, and Portugal. We own properties in Portugal. I have traveled through most of Europe. Travel is open there, you would be limiting travel here. Say I had family or friends living in Nevada, I wouldn't be able to visit them in your scenario of limited movement.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
First, increased labor supply would result in lower costs for goods and services. Just like everyone understands that the cost of lettuce would skyrocket if we had no illegal immigrants already living and working in this country.
Lower costs for goods and services is but an assumption that would probably true for services but not necessarily for goods. Lettuce would not sky rocket (talk about rhetoric ), fuel costs have a larger effect to the costs of lettuce then does labor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The US government may compete with other nations, but the US government also constantly throws up protectionist policies(tariffs/sanctions/etc) to prevent competition. While aggressively protecting its access to markets and resources through our militarism. The US government competing with foreign governments is obviously nothing remotely similar to a "free market". It is about as fixed a market as there could ever be.
You are taking a Classic Liberal ideal and perverting it. The "free market" was theorized for the nation, not for the globe. You Libertarians somehow want to expand it beyond what it was intended.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The reality is that the vast majority of the people are trapped in this country. And at least if government was more on the state level, we would have 50 different choices. Under your system, the majority of us would simply have no choices at all. And if your immigration restrictions were adopted by every single country, then we would really be ****ed.
We already have 50 different choices, you made that point previously in comments. My immigration restrictions are already in place in every single country, and for good reason obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
There were quotas in place that restricted the amount of Jews that could come here. And as things got worse in Europe, we actually tightened those quotas even more. Please, go educate yourself.
Educate myself? Wrong words bud. I suggest you REALLY pay attention to my words and what I state. The quotas were just over 27,000, why else do you think I stated over 27,000 per year?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
It is ridiculous for you to defend the actions of our government. And I guarantee you that if the states had still been able to regulate immigration prior and during WWII, many many many more refugees from Europe would have come to the United States, and would have been saved from the holocaust and its mass murder. So don't you dare defend it.
Lets use your key words: In your view! I don't care about your view, I don't care about what you think is ridiculous. Now I am defending the Holocaust. Do not impose your ignorance of my words. The nation back then was strongly for quotas, 83% of the nation in fact. If anybody needs to educate themselves I would suggest you look in the mirror.
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
Similar Threads
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