Colonialism v. Immigration v. National Borders v. Compassion - What's the Solution? (employment, multiculturalism)
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.
"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.
1. I really don't like the characterization of cosmopolitanism as a product of the "heart." Moral beliefs are as much a matter of the head as mathematical or scientific beliefs. Feelings play no part in moral truth.
2. I'm not sure that common sense does dictate that we get only the "best" people, but even if it does, common sense is useless. Any true belief that people hold for common sense reasons can be justified more correctly with a real explanation rather than by simply pointing to common sense. This phrase is sometimes used to simply refer to commonly-held beliefs (Common sense says god exists), but sometimes it refers to any sort of statement that appears true so long as we don't think about it too much.
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."
Thanks for your generosity and righteousness in saving the world . You have missed the land grabbing, wars and high interest rates which are also for the larger good.
At seventy three years of age I am firmly in the camp of those who once lived in an entirely different America than the one I live in today. Immigrants back in the fifties were more than likely to come from places that we all had heard of, mostly Euro nations and some from the southern islands. Today we see the hoards of immigrants coming here from the distressed third world nations, wholly unprepared and adding to the scope of American poverty, challenging our resources meant for our own less fortunate citizens.
When considering the huge changes people my age have seen, the one that really stands out is the addition of more obvious foreign faces in every place I go. Our population has grown to the extent that infrastructure is considerably overloaded, and it's replacement cost is competing for funds which now are allocated to a growing underclass, we certainly don't need to add more poverty stricken people to that situation.
The irony associated with modern day immigration lies in the fact of America being just one more place where technology has diminished the chance for a better spread of prosperity. Many of those who cross our borders, legally of otherwise, find a far different America than the one they dreamed about, their children are now exposed to a culture they openly shunned in their homeland, a new and different form of poverty awaits them, and their presence in their jobs are often regarded as a fact of American labor unrest, their wages recognized as being that of a sub-par compensation scheme.
From my perspective, I'd think we are way overdue for a moratorium on all immigration, the American pie I grew up eating is now greatly diminished, especially for those on the lower rungs of society. We don't need to look beyond our shores for things to be concerned about, we've got plenty of social ills on our collective plates as it is, now is the time to look for solutions to our own national problems, and then, if we can find workable solutions, we may see a need for allowing more people from the rest of the planet.
No one outside the US has any claim on our society, and no American citizen is obliged to come to the aid of foreigners in distress, we, as a nation do help, our various foreign aid programs do some good, but the fact is, we have many here in America who are being pushed aside in favor of foreigners who willfully undermine the opportunities of American minorities, the poor, and the less educated. I don't blame anyone for attempting to have a better life, but we have immigration laws, and perhaps we'll need more stringent laws in order to help our own citizens before allowing more people to come here.
I think our only hope of managing immigration is a combination of actions that involve both the carrot and the stick.
I don't like the term "wall", but I do agree more secure borders are needed. These can take the form of fences, electronic barriers, and additional immigration enforcement agents.
At the same time though, we need to recognize Mexico is a special circumstance for the USA. Like it or not, they border us and they are a poor country with a large population. I think we have to make room for the fact that legal immigration from Mexico needs to be increased. We should be running guest worker programs and programs that allow for Mexicans to apply to immigrate to the US with some reasonable chance of success within no more than 5 to 10 year period. Perhaps, we need to allow as many as 500K to 1,000,000 Mexicans to legally immigrate to the US per year if they meet certain pre-qualifications. I think its reasonable to expect some proficiency in the use of English. Those with criminal records should be denied. We should though allow both immigration from skilled and unskilled workers. Ideally, immigration would focus on just skilled workers, but unless we allow honest unskilled people to immigrate or at least come as guest workers we'll always have unsustainable pressure on the southern border.
We also need more immigration judges to eliminate large backlogs of cases and to adjudicate claims for asylum. Those who claim we do not fail to understand the process of immigration and legalities that must be followed.
we need to recognize Mexico is a special circumstance for the USA. Like it or not, they border us and they are a poor country with a large population. I think we have to make room for the fact that legal immigration from Mexico needs to be increased.
What makes Mexico a "special circumstance" for the United States? We already have the most generous immigration system in the world, and importing a million Mexicans a year will turn their problems into our problems and wont stop illegal immigration from central and south America. ICE has arrested people from 35 middle eastern and Asian countries, as well as several
African countries with known terrorist ties. It would do nothing to help stop the flood of illegal drugs coming from Mexico either, which killed over 72,000 Americans last year, almost half from fentanyl, with at least 80% of the fentanyl seized by the DEA can be tied to Mexican cartels.
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."
The best solution to the plight of Third Worlders is this:
1. Work on measures to raise their IQs. For instance, this can be done by eradicating malnutrition, parasitic disease load, and iodine deficiency. Thus could also be done in the future by things such as embryo selection--specifically picking the embryo with the best genes for IQ--before one does IVF.
2. Push more well-off Third World countries--such as Turkey and Brazil--to open their doors to immigrants from less fortunate parts of the Third World. After all, moving to Turkey or Brazil would be a godsend to someone from, say, Pakistan or Tanzania considering that they would probably become much wealthier. Having Third Worlders move en masse to the First World is more problematic since they could cause the average IQ of the First World to drop and thus make the First World poorer than it would have otherwise been.
I think our only hope of managing immigration is a combination of actions that involve both the carrot and the stick.
I don't like the term "wall", but I do agree more secure borders are needed. These can take the form of fences, electronic barriers, and additional immigration enforcement agents.
At the same time though, we need to recognize Mexico is a special circumstance for the USA. Like it or not, they border us and they are a poor country with a large population. I think we have to make room for the fact that legal immigration from Mexico needs to be increased. We should be running guest worker programs and programs that allow for Mexicans to apply to immigrate to the US with some reasonable chance of success within no more than 5 to 10 year period. Perhaps, we need to allow as many as 500K to 1,000,000 Mexicans to legally immigrate to the US per year if they meet certain pre-qualifications. I think its reasonable to expect some proficiency in the use of English. Those with criminal records should be denied. We should though allow both immigration from skilled and unskilled workers. Ideally, immigration would focus on just skilled workers, but unless we allow honest unskilled people to immigrate or at least come as guest workers we'll always have unsustainable pressure on the southern border.
We also need more immigration judges to eliminate large backlogs of cases and to adjudicate claims for asylum. Those who claim we do not fail to understand the process of immigration and legalities that must be followed.
Here's the problem with birthright citizenship--if you let unskilled people come here and also to bring their spouses or significant other with them, then they are going to have children here who are going to be U.S. citizens. If they have a low average IQ, then this would mean that the average IQ of the U.S. is going to decrease and that the U.S. is going to be poorer on a per capita basis than it would have otherwise been.
I think our only hope of managing immigration is a combination of actions that involve both the carrot and the stick.
I don't like the term "wall", but I do agree more secure borders are needed. These can take the form of fences, electronic barriers, and additional immigration enforcement agents.
At the same time though, we need to recognize Mexico is a special circumstance for the USA. Like it or not, they border us and they are a poor country with a large population. I think we have to make room for the fact that legal immigration from Mexico needs to be increased. We should be running guest worker programs and programs that allow for Mexicans to apply to immigrate to the US with some reasonable chance of success within no more than 5 to 10 year period. Perhaps, we need to allow as many as 500K to 1,000,000 Mexicans to legally immigrate to the US per year if they meet certain pre-qualifications. I think its reasonable to expect some proficiency in the use of English. Those with criminal records should be denied. We should though allow both immigration from skilled and unskilled workers. Ideally, immigration would focus on just skilled workers, but unless we allow honest unskilled people to immigrate or at least come as guest workers we'll always have unsustainable pressure on the southern border.
We also need more immigration judges to eliminate large backlogs of cases and to adjudicate claims for asylum. Those who claim we do not fail to understand the process of immigration and legalities that must be followed.
Just because Mexico is on our southern border doesn't mean their citizens should get special treatment by increasing their numbers here. Mexico already has the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country and family reunifications on our soil. It's mostly the poor, unskilled and uneducated that are coming here and that just creates a burden to our society.
We have an identifying culture to preserve also. Why would we want to be noted as a Hispanic country? Our language is English not Spanish. We don't need any more guest worker programs. We have plenty of Americans to do any jobs in our country. Constantly increasing our population numbers from mostly one ethnic group results in colonization not assimilation and puts more demand on our natural and social resources.
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.
^^^This says quite a bit. Most of us are compassionate and want some sort of a safety net. We also are smart enough to realize that maybe WE or someone we love might even need some sort of a safety net someday.
IF we have a decent safety net, including one that offers health care, we cannot also have loose border standards. The two do not co-exist.
Safety nets do not work when too many take and many do not give. That's why LEGAL immigration works: a LEGAL immigrant is vetted to make sure that they have the money to support themselves and that they have a sponsor who makes a legal promise to support them if something goes wrong in the first five years.
People pouring in from Mexico or any other country without sponsors or jobs to go to, no education to help them up the ladder, and they have never paid even a dime into the system, are a death knell to any sort of a safety net. The safety net is for people (American citizens and LEGAL permanent residents) who have paid into it. Look what's happening in England where so many immigrants have been let in due to the EU and from before that, from Pakistan and other former commonwealth countries. They never PAID IN. Now there isn't enough health care to go around and it hurts the people who DID pay in.
And we need to return to using our guest worker program. It's still there. Just use it! They come, work, and go home. Maybe the money they take back with them helps to make their country a better place.
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.
