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.
^^^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.
The guest worker program also is/and has been, an invitation to undermine the entirety of America's labor compensation structure. From Wiki: "Under the (bracero) program, total farm employment skyrocketed, domestic farm worker employment decreased, and the farm wage rate decreased." On the other hand, I think it's past time to close the door to all foreign labor coming here. But, politically, that's not going to be a substantial part of the two parties agenda, serving corporate America is the real task of politicians, so lost jobs for US citizens is simply a collateral damage they are willing to risk.
That move should end the vitriolic debate surrounding the suspicions of both side regarding the prospects of obtaining enough American workers to fill all the available job openings. I've been saying for years that the wage floor was dropped a few stories by the presence of foreigners coming here to find their slice of the American pie. Closing the door would drive up wages and prices, but, that's the system (capitalism) most say they want..
The biggest obstacle to any real change lies in the fact that labor immigrants serve the profit motives of American capitalism. Trump's wall is simply a political sloganeering attempt to garner party support by exploiting the anger over perceptions of foreigners taking jobs from Americans. A wall has been dismissed as something doubtful at best, and useless at worst in the face of "guest worker" allowances, day trippers who just overstay their welcome, and those smuggled in under the radar of border patrols at the various crossing points. Stopping ALL, legal, and illegal from coming here would certainly bring the most pressing questions of immigration VS American labor to the fore.
^^^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.
What guest worker programs exist and why do you think we need them? I understand the unlimited visas for crop pickers as it's not a career job for Americans and is only seasonal work but what other jobs do you feel we need guest workers for that can't be filled by Americans for a fair wage?
What guest worker programs exist and why do you think we need them? I understand the unlimited visas for crop pickers as it's not a career job for Americans and is only seasonal work but what other jobs do you feel we need guest workers for that can't be filled by Americans for a fair wage?
Not really. With decent wages purchasing power increases and more products are sold. I don't know how much profit is considered low when before the influx of cheap labor companies seemed to do just fine. They just got greedier.
Stronger, more secure borders. Reduced immigration. And always compassion. I can be compassionate to a stranger without giving them a bedroom in my flat to share with my daughter.
If you say, "we are now opening up our borders to women who have suffered abuse from husbands", don't be surprised if tens of thousands of females show up at the border, children in tow, claiming abusive husbands, proof or no proof. It's a ticket to the country. Also don't be surprised if feminist politicians and their Leftist allies want more, more, more of this policy. It conforms to and helps build on the victim mentality culture that pits everyone against everyone.
Although some Doctors, Engineers, etc, leave poorer countries, they don't leave by a large margin. Threre are plenty of medical professionals and engineers in every country. Most people who were born into a country, assume that culture, and love their national identity. Even if it is a poor country. They have pride. It's the same reason that sports fans don't simply change teams every year. Do you think the world cup is so big because soccer is such and awesome sport. No, it is because rival countries get to face off with one another, the riots after a loss are a direct result of this.
For the most part, the people sneaking over the border, breaking the law, are people who as a part of their being, don't really care about the rule of law. These are normally lower income, lower education people who have to hustle for everything they have.
I don't want this to seem like I am some racist, I'm not. I just want people to understand that there is a lot more going on other than just taking care of some poor people. Even third world countries have nice areas, an upper class, and successful businesses. For every northern Mexican that jumps the border, there is another Mexican living in a big home, with a nice salary, watching his investments grow. People seem to think the Mexico and South/Central America is some nuclear wasteland.
I also want to comment on the statement that some places don't have water. There is water everywhere on this planet. Water isn't the problem, it is having the means to make it safe to drink. What that takes is energy. So the real problem isn't lack of water, but lack of electricity. Saudi Arabia, and many other countries use de-salinization to make fresh water. So it is possible. Environmental concerns aside, it is possible to dig a man made river from the ocean right into the heart of the Sahara. So getting water isn't the problem.
Great point. Although some may be confused about Northern Mexico being the poorest part of Mexico. That would be non factual, the southern most states in Mexico are the poorest. The North is actually the wealthiest area of Mexico, barring Mexico City. Monterey is the wealthiest city in Mexico and it is in the North.
There is plenty of evidence supporting the reality that the Nation State is the largest governing level achievable with human beings. Many of the world’s cultures are distinct enough to make open borders impractical. Just look at the Arab nations, being culturally similar yet choose to value national identity first.
The situation is not getting better either. As nations become wealthier they are choosing to invest their new power to actually defend and enable their culture. It is also a liberal mantra to maintain that multiculturalism is the answer. Civility is likely the best we could achieve, and it really is only viable between the elite echelons of given cultures.
Non wealthy subcultures within the US better be careful when they hope for the demise of the dominant culture in the US. The political backing of Social safety nets are in essence supported by the money coming from interests that would benefit from increased population. Once their goal is reached and your group hasn’t reached critical social/wealth value, you are finished. The vastly larger homogeneous nations of this planet will have hold the US to a considerably lower standard. Future defense spending will be cut as we will need a way to not tax the rich to much while supporting a much larger population of poor subcultures. Disdain towards the military by the NEW America will be vastly increased, as many will retain memories of what the OLD America’s military enacted on their ethnic homelands. Without the subsequent reduction in control of the sea lanes, will spell the end of America’s unbalanced wealth dividend.
The dividend that consequently is the reason why immigrants want to come here.
There are plenty of people who want the world to be truly governed without borders, but the only way to do that, is for a country to forcefully take over, so that all are covered under the same laws. The liberals don't have a stomach for this, so they would rather support total anarchy, a world with no laws at all.
The only problem with the liberal utopia, is the fact that most of the world doesn't want to live this way. People love their national identity, and those that are successful don't want to leave their homeland. So what we are left with is the stark reality that one world order will never work. Not the way that the liberals want to do it. The only way it makes sense for a country to accept a large increase in population, is if a large increase in territory comes with it.
I have said many times that the answer to the immigration problem in Mexico, would be for the U.S to annex the Mexican states of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Neuvo Leon, and Tamaulipas. This is the poorest parts of Mexico anyway, and these are primarily the people that want to illegally cross the border. The U.S. helps out a poor part of the world, but at the same time, extends our protection of the environment, rule of law, and freedoms. The U.S. would also significantly expand our tax base. Imagine the land rush this would create, as U.S. Citizens would be able to purchase dirt cheap property just south of California. The entire region would be transformed within a decade.
Of course, this would never happen, as Mexico is making a killing right now by ripping off U.S. taxpayers.
The U.S. can't be the dumping ground of the world's lowest IQ people. Without a border, we will loose this country. Immigration has to be merit based, if a person wants the honor of living here, they have to bring something to the table.
To begin with, I'm a Democrat, and I hang mostly with middle of the road to somewhat left of center. Who are all those people wanting open borders? I've never me one.
All of my relatively liberal friends want a controlled border with fair and relatively equal (geographically) immigration.
Well, what is American national identity? Let's see. Who imported slaves? Where do most American's ancestors come from?
You want to invade Mexico? What international laws do you live under? Please be specific.
You want to invade Mexico? What international laws do you live under? Please be specific.
I know you're not addressing me, but I don't want to invade Mexico. That being said Mexico, like Afghanistan, has a responsibility to police its territory so its territory doesn't become a path for every caravan from every G-dforsaken country to get to the U.S. The U.S. has a very real humanitarian crisis on its borders and not of its making. Mexico allowed thousands of people to come through that it knew could not legally enter the U.S. The U.S. has a right to repel caravans, as much as any other invading force. Just as Afghanistan had a responsibility not to become a base for Al Qaeda.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,476,450 times
Reputation: 12187
I would love open borders but until all nations have similar values and economic levels it isn't possible. Specific to the USA / Mexico situation there is a significant gap in crime level and govt corruption between our two nations. Until that gap is mostly closed we have to have some type of barrier to free movement. I'd like to see some type of legal status that doesn't guarantee (or explicitly deny) citizenship in the future used more often.
For the argument that "your ancestors came here so you can't morally keep any new people from coming in"... actually all migrants deal with the wishes of the people currently there. The first European settlers preferred areas where Natives were friendly rather than hostile. Once Europeans became the dominant group there were limits by state on where certain groups could settle. My English Anglican ancestors wouldn't allow the settle of my German Protestant or Scottish Presbyterian ancestors except in Penn's free colony. All of my non English ancestors arrived at Philadelphia because it was the only port where they could legally disembark.
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.
