NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, excuse the hyperbole of the title. Still, I do find it odd that in the USA, UK, and other countries, it's often the most anti-communist, right-wing, capitalist parties and individuals who oppose immigration. I know plenty who don't, of course - kudos to them - but those who do, I'm wondering, how on earth do they justify their beliefs?

It's not simply about the free movement of labour: more, it's that it's not "your" country they're coming into. Individuals don't own nations, and to suggest that the "native citizens" or whatever of a particular nation do have some inherent stake in it, and a right to move within it in search of employment that someone from outside does not seems decidedly communal. After all, it's a fairly basic principle of capitalism that individuals have the right to do with their property as they will. Hence they shouldn't have to give up as taxes. Furthermore, whatever rights exist in the public sphere can be modified on private property: I could say that no one may say "fuck" in my house, but it wouldn't be oppressing your freedom of speech, because you're voluntary relinquishing that right as you move onto my property (much as Jolt and NS can set rules on content for us without running afoul of free speech laws).

So, then, if I decide I want to let some people onto my property - and so long as they don't go onto your property - what right do you to tell me to stop doing so? That's not just undermining freedom of association, but the very principle of property rights. This extends to employment: an employer has the right to choose which workers they hire, and keep on. Telling them they can't employ immigrants is an infringement of that choice.

Therefore, I think Pat Buchanan needs to decide: does he oppose immigration, or communism?

If you oppose immigration reform, the terrorists win.

Here in the USA, most of us aren't opposed to immigration.

We are a nation of laws. I don't think that it is to much to ask for the foreigners to come here legally.

I am very much opposed to the illegals swarming across the border. They should be deported immediately and put on a list of law breakers who aren't permitted back into our country.

As for all of the legal immigrants. I welcome you to America.

Its not that countries oppose immigration, it that they oppose the mass migrations of people and the huge numbers of illegal immigrants.

We are a nation of laws. I don't think that it is to much to ask for the foreigners to come here legally.

I am very much opposed to the illegals swarming across the border. They should be deported immediately and put on a list of law breakers who aren't permitted back into our country.
So on what basis is the government granted the right to prohibit free individuals from moving into an area of private property with the owner's consent?

Here in the USA, most of us aren't opposed to immigration.

bullshit

We are a nation of laws. I don't think that it is to much to ask for the foreigners to come here legally.

I am very much opposed to the illegals swarming across the border. They should be deported immediately and put on a list of law breakers who aren't permitted back into our country.

As for all of the legal immigrants. I welcome you to America.

Stupid apologist argument. I am not opposed to immigration, I just support laws that are opposed to immigration.

I don't oppose immigration because it's "my" country and I don't want people coming into "my" country. I oppose it because the country I live in is over crowded. The prisons are over crowded, the schools are over crowded, the hospitals are over crowded. There just isn't enough room for yet more people.

I justify myself by patriotism. Buy British, Work britsh, Go british, Sell British.

So on what basis is the government granted the right to prohibit free individuals from moving into an area of private property with the owner's consent?

Since you don't know, I'll try and explain it to you.

Laws were passed regarding foreigners entering our country by the very representatives that our grandparents voted for. Laws are continueing to be enacted by the very representatives that you and I vote for.

There are laws enacted to allow foreigners to come to our country legally. There are guest programs such as the Visa also. Even if it is an area of private property with the owner's consent, does NOT and can NOT override our current laws on the issue.

These laws are a must and are here for a reason, although currently not enforced as much as it should be, to prevent different sorts of people from living off of our land and tax paying dollars and the US government. To try and prevent drug traffikers, terrorists, slave owners, etc...

So, if the land owner grants permission to an illegal to stay, I would support the deportation of the illegal and would support Eminent Domain to occur to the unlawful land owner plus other heavy penalties.

I justify myself by patriotism. Buy British, Work britsh, Go british, Sell British.

You sir are a brave man with low standards. Do you really drive British cars and only holiday in Britain?

These laws are a must and are here for a reason, although currently not enforced as much as it should be, to prevent different sorts of people from living off of our land and tax paying dollars and the US government. To try and prevent drug traffikers, terrorists, slave owners, etc...

You have shown nothing, all of those problems are exacerbated by the laws you say must be here.

bullshit



Stupid apologist argument. I am not opposed to immigration, I just support laws that are opposed to immigration.

What do you mean "bull shit"? Where's the proof? Our country has a huge number of legal immigrants and foreigners here with a visa, so how is it that the USA is against immigration.

The numbers we currently have for legal immigrants speaks for itself.

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined. [1]

Here's a source..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States_of_America

If you oppose immigration reform, the terrorists win.

If you oppose the United States (the freest nation on Earth) the terrorists win.

bullshit

yes just keep saying that. it helps your arguement of all americans are racist, bigots, assholes. you it could be possible that some people truelly feel that way. in fact its more then possible you see it all the time. I myself welcome all legal immigrants from wround the world. i know many people from many different back grounds.

Stupid apologist argument. I am not opposed to immigration, I just support laws that are opposed to immigration.

those laws are not opposed to immigration. those laws are what makes a country a sovereign nation. which is in fact one of many characteristics that make a country. without distinct borders or border control we are no longer a sovereign nation.

What do you mean "bull shit"? Where's the proof? Our country has a huge number of legal immigrants and foreigners here with a visa, so how is it that the USA is against immigration.

The numbers we currently have for legal immigrants speaks for itself.

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined. [1]

Here's a source..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States_of_America

Is the economy of the US being adversly affected by the number of immigrants in the country?

I'm fine with immigration as long as they're rich, white, Christian, males who are immigrating. :)

Seriously, though, I'm cool with immigration as long as we don't have to dish out welfare benefits to subsidise people who don't want to work. If we allow unrestricted immigration, we'll dish out billions of dollars in welfare benefits to the immigrants. We should allow such immigration after demolishing our welfare state.

Heh, we're a nation of laws... except we just have the largest prison population in the world. I guess maybe all those criminals are "illegals" though, eh? Couldn't be home-grown Legal People.

I'm fine with immigration as long as they're rich, white, Christian, males who are immigrating. :)

Seriously, though, I'm cool with immigration as long as we don't have to dish out welfare benefits to subsidise people who don't want to work. If we allow unrestricted immigration, we'll dish out billions of dollars in welfare benefits to the immigrants. We should allow such immigration after demolishing our welfare state.

But if they are illegal then they can't claim benefits as they are unregistered, this system gives you the best of both worlds.

So on what basis is the government granted the right to prohibit free individuals from moving into an area of private property with the owner's consent?

I may be wrong on this, but government laws go above the rights of private property for the fact that people can only own land if the government that owns that land views them as doing so.

Or in other words, you don't really own that land, the government owns it, but you are allowed to claim it as your own.

So, on the basis that the land is actually the governments, that gives them the right to prohibit actions happening on your property. If that wasn't true, then wouldn't it also be illegal for police to break into marijuana growing houses and shut them down, since they are on private property and have the owners consent?

Here in the USA, most of us aren't opposed to immigration.

We are a nation of laws. I don't think that it is to much to ask for the foreigners to come here legally.

I am very much opposed to the illegals swarming across the border. They should be deported immediately and put on a list of law breakers who aren't permitted back into our country.

As for all of the legal immigrants. I welcome you to America.

We place strict quotas on the number of mexicans who can legally immigrate, otherwise they could come here fairly easily and be legal. Our laws make them illegals, we made the problem when we decided we didn't want all those damn brown people moving north.

What do you mean "bull shit"? Where's the proof?

We have illegal immigrants whose only crime is immigration. Is that not proof enough?

Our country has a huge number of legal immigrants and foreigners here with a visa, so how is it that the USA is against immigration.

The numbers we currently have for legal immigrants speaks for itself.

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined. [1]

Here's a source..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States_of_America

Throughout American history, every shifting influx of people to America resulted in the tightening of the quotas of allowed people from that region.

Allowing a few hundred thousand immigrants into the nation each year and calling that pro-immigration is like only allowing black-powder muzzleloaders and calling it pro gun rights.

We place strict quotas on the number of mexicans who can legally immigrate, otherwise they could come here fairly easily and be legal. Our laws make them illegals, we made the problem when we decided we didn't want all those damn brown people moving north.

You make it sound like the only quota we have is on Mexicans. I'm also fairly sure we have quotas on Irish, British, and German people, just to name a few. So, by that logic, we don't want them whites moving in either!

A lot of people in this country seem to be under the impression that anti-immigration and economic conservatism go hand in hand. I think the opposite is true. The people who benefit the most from immigration in this country are those who control big business. They get cheap labour out of it. That is one reason I oppose the lax immigration laws in Britain, I don't like the current system where the good of the people of this country is ignored by the government in order to maximise the profits of their big business financiers, all in the name of the free market.

yes just keep saying that. it helps your arguement of all americans are racist, bigots, assholes. you it could be possible that some people truelly feel that way. in fact its more then possible you see it all the time. I myself welcome all legal immigrants from wround the world. i know many people from many different back grounds.

I don't care if you welcome legal immigrants. Your argument is still bullshit.

those laws are not opposed to immigration. those laws are what makes a country a sovereign nation. which is in fact one of many characteristics that make a country. without distinct borders or border control we are no longer a sovereign nation.

Laws themselves are what make a soveriegn nation, it has nothing to do with the movement of people.

We place strict quotas on the number of mexicans who can legally immigrate, otherwise they could come here fairly easily and be legal. Our laws make them illegals, we made the problem when we decided we didn't want all those damn brown people moving north.

you are trying but failing to make all americans look racist. all you are really doing is showing your own ignorance.

I don't care if you welcome legal immigrants. Your argument is still bullshit.



Laws themselves are what make a soveriegn nation, it has nothing to do with the movement of people.

hmm so a country with no border control and not knowing who is comming in and out of your country is a sovereign nation?

We have illegal immigrants whose only crime is immigration. Is that not proof enough?



Throughout American history, every shifting influx of people to America resulted in the tightening of the quotas of allowed people from that region.

Allowing a few hundred thousand immigrants into the nation each year and calling that pro-immigration is like only allowing black-powder muzzleloaders and calling it pro gun rights.

I don't guess that you bothered to read how the USA has the most legal immigrants than the world combined. Maybe you should be bitching to those other countries who prevent people from migrating.

Record proves that the USA is #1 when it comes to opening up your country to foreigners.

I may be wrong on this, but government laws go above the rights of private property for the fact that people can only own land if the government that owns that land views them as doing so.

Actually, the founding fathers would disagree with you, but practical government would agree with you. It is common practice for government to usurp private property rights.

Or in other words, you don't really own that land, the government owns it, but you are allowed to claim it as your own.

It is not that the government owns the land, it is just responsible for upholding the individuals ownership, and can decide to stop upholding that ownership when it wants to.

You make it sound like the only quota we have is on Mexicans. I'm also fairly sure we have quotas on Irish, British, and German people, just to name a few. So, by that logic, we don't want them whites moving in either!

Those quotas don't severly bottleneck the immigration like our Mexican quotas do. If you go back about a hundred years, you will find plenty of "We must stop the Irish from invading our cities" rhetoric backing very restrictive quotas on Irish immigration.

Actually, the founding fathers would disagree with you, but practical government would agree with you. It is common practice for government to usurp private property rights.



It is not that the government owns the land, it is just responsible for upholding the individuals ownership, and can decide to stop upholding that ownership when it wants to.

I wish America could be run more like the founding fathers intended it to. A lot of current crap could be avoided that way. =/ And thanks for your corrections. I'm a bit out of it today.

I don't guess that you bothered to read how the USA has the most legal immigrants than the world combined. Maybe you should be bitching to those other countries who prevent people from migrating.

Record proves that the USA is #1 when it comes to opening up your country to foreigners.

IRRELEVANT.

hmm so a country with no border control and not knowing who is comming in and out of your country is a sovereign nation?

I am not particularly fond of immigration without any documentation, but a soveriegn nation can allow whoever they want to into their country.

But if they are illegal then they can't claim benefits as they are unregistered, this system gives you the best of both worlds.

Oh, really? Please read the following article prior to commenting any further on this topic.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=263&sortorder=articledate

California's health care costs for illegals run $1 billion per year. Welfare to single mothers costs $540 million per year. In Los Angeles alone, the costs of single mother subsidies was scheduled to reach $1 billion by the end of the decade.

Before someone unjustly declares me a rascist....I have allowed a male Cuban and his 3 yr old son to move in my house who are here legally, and also a female Korean who was born in the USA. So just for the Record,(funny, my sister couldn't even believe it) I am not that much of a rascist.

hmm so a country with no border control and not knowing who is comming in and out of your country is a sovereign nation?

yes. next question.

Those quotas don't severly bottleneck the immigration like our Mexican quotas do. If you go back about a hundred years, you will find plenty of "We must stop the Irish from invading our cities" rhetoric backing very restrictive quotas on Irish immigration.

And of course, people on this board (and off it) feel, very specifically, that immigration (of Latinos in general) is an invasion.

Some go so far as to say it's part of an evil plot to commit genocide, against White People.

I guess those who don't learn from history are doomed to make us all repeat it.

I am not particularly fond of immigration without any documentation, but a soveriegn nation can allow whoever they want to into their country.

exactly

whoever they want in their country. border control ensures that the country is only letting those that they want in. open border is not letting everyone in, including people the country wants to keep out.

people a country might want to keep out can be anything from rapist, serial killers, invading armies. just to name a few. an open border doesnt keep any of these out.

And of course, people on this board (and off it) feel, very specifically, that immigration (of Latinos in general) is an invasion.

Some go so far as to say it's part of an evil plot to commit genocide, against White People.

I guess those who don't learn from history are doomed to make us all repeat it.

im just going to reply to your post with two mark twain qoutes

“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”

and

“History doesn't repeat itself - at best it sometimes rhymes”

If you go back about a hundred years, you will find plenty of "We must stop the Irish from invading our cities" rhetoric backing very restrictive quotas on Irish immigration.

luckily for the irish, they were able to get citizenship rather easily and got themselves integrated into the political machines of their cities. that and the know-nothings just weren't very effective bigots.

im just going to reply to your post with two mark twain qoutes

“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”


Nice quote. Not an argument. Not even applicable, since I am not making anything I said up.

We are a nation of laws. I don't think that it is to much to ask for the foreigners to come here legally.

I am very much opposed to the illegals swarming across the border. They should be deported immediately and put on a list of law breakers who aren't permitted back into our country.

As for all of the legal immigrants. I welcome you to America.

ah, excellent. so when we pass laws that protect the free movement of peoples (including retroactively), we can expect your strong support. and you won't oppose our efforts to create that system, either, as all you care about is that the law is followed. right?

exactly

whoever they want in their country. border control ensures that the country is only letting those that they want in. open border is not letting everyone in, including people the country wants to keep out.

people a country might want to keep out can be anything from rapist, serial killers, invading armies. just to name a few. an open border doesnt keep any of these out.

All true, but none of that is necessary for national sovereignty.

that and the know-nothings just weren't very effective bigots.

Except for those occasions when they went on week-long riots.

no. opposition to emigration is communist.

Ok, excuse the hyperbole of the title. Still, I do find it odd that in the USA, UK, and other countries, it's often the most anti-communist, right-wing, capitalist parties and individuals who oppose immigration.

There's a lot of lip service paid to being "anti communist" or even "right wing." But saying does not equate to being. Republicans and Democrats both aren't communist, but nor are they particularly capitalist. The US economy is described as "mixed" and that's the best you could say for it. It's basically a socialist system, though not as "socialist" as certain European nations.


It's not simply about the free movement of labour: more, it's that it's not "your" country they're coming into. Individuals don't own nations, and to suggest that the "native citizens" or whatever of a particular nation do have some inherent stake in it, and a right to move within it in search of employment that someone from outside does not seems decidedly communal. After all, it's a fairly basic principle of capitalism that individuals have the right to do with their property as they will. Hence they shouldn't have to give up as taxes. Furthermore, whatever rights exist in the public sphere can be modified on private property: I could say that no one may say "fuck" in my house, but it wouldn't be oppressing your freedom of speech, because you're voluntary relinquishing that right as you move onto my property (much as Jolt and NS can set rules on content for us without running afoul of free speech laws).

So, then, if I decide I want to let some people onto my property - and so long as they don't go onto your property - what right do you to tell me to stop doing so? That's not just undermining freedom of association, but the very principle of property rights. This extends to employment: an employer has the right to choose which workers they hire, and keep on. Telling them they can't employ immigrants is an infringement of that choice.

Therefore, I think Pat Buchanan needs to decide: does he oppose immigration, or communism?

An interesting argument, but generally it's a communist ideal to eliminate all borders, so the "border control" faction is in that context anti-communist.

But it's definitely not free market and on that basis I do assert those most "concerned" about border control oppose economic freedom.

And a good number of anti-immigration folks seem to oppose freedom of ethnicity when they, for example, assume Hispanics are Illegals. At least it smacks of bigotry. Calling them "illegals" is equivalent to calling someone a WOP (Without Papers), in that it works to dehumanize them through a supposedly innocent slang term.

In this case, I must support the conservatives. A mass, uncontroled immigration is bad for almost every country.

Many western countries need immigrants. But not too many, and the right ones. They normaly have enough problems with unemployeds with bad education. And the education of the most immigrants is even worse. What they lack are people like doctors or engineers.

The illegal immigrants work for wages no European or American would be able to live from. There is no fair competition. In Europe, especially the southern countries have many problems with immigrants flooding from Africa. They want work in Europe, but their is not even enough work for the Europeans.

And another problem of an uncontroled emigration can be seen in Eastern Germany. As there is a high unemployment, most of the young people move to Western Germany then they have finished school. So the population in Eastern Germany gets older and older. If the economy grows again, nobody would invest in Eastern Germany because of a lack of young employees and a weak market. Now think, what would happen to countries like Mexico, when all the young people would work and live abroad. It isn't good for these states as well.

To solve this problem, you have to strengthen the economy in the third world. A large fence won't help, and letting all of them in won't do good either.

In this case, I must support the conservatives. A mass, uncontroled immigration is bad for almost every country.


No one is talking about "mass, uncontrolled immigration." There are people, whether you admit it, who oppose immigration, period.

There are also however those whose issue seems to be that because people illegally immigrate, there is no "control." In fact, the opposite is true -- too much control is in place, too many fees and paperwork, otherwise they would not be risking death in the desert to come to America. What people don't understand is that it takes money to immigrate, money that if many immigrants had to begin with, they wouldn't be immigrating at all.


Many western countries need immigrants. But not too many, and the right ones. They normaly have enough problems with unemployeds with bad education. And the education of the most immigrants is even worse. What they lack are people like doctors or engineers.

So when you say the "right ones," you mean people with education, technical skills and money. In other words the kinds of people who aren't gonna be immigrating to the US looking for a better life in the first place.


The illegal immigrants work for wages no European or American would be able to live from. There is no fair competition.

What? If they work for those wages AND live off them, Europeans and Americans CAN live off those same wages, they just prefer not to. Sorry, that's what competition IS. If you eliminate a competing economic group simply because they're successfully competing, that's the antithesis of 'fair competition.'


In Europe, especially the southern countries have many problems with immigrants flooding from Africa. They want work in Europe, but their is not even enough work for the Europeans.

The alternative is worse than a tougher job market. It's them going back to fascist tinpot dictatorships with no civil rights, no freedom, no economy, to possible political persecution, repression, starvation, disease and death.

So I'm sorry if it seems like it's hard on you, but realize it's harder - much harder - on them.

Particularly with the anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner mindset that many Europeans (and Americans) seem to have these days.


To solve this problem, you have to strengthen the economy in the third world. A large fence won't help, and letting all of them in won't do good either.

I agree, and anti-immigration "fences" or walls isn't the answer. Unfortunately, the USA seems to be more inclined to use it's resources - well, MY resources, since I pay taxes - to do things like invade Iraq, or fund Israel's military, instead of helping anyone's economy.

bullshit



Stupid apologist argument. I am not opposed to immigration, I just support laws that are opposed to immigration.

There is no contradiction in opposing illegal immigration and supporting immigration in general. In hearing what you want to hear, suddenly anyone who opposes foreign nationals entering the nation's borders without following the legal processes set out is opposing all immigration. If you're fine being that closed-minded, it's your prerogatice. Just remember that your argument fails on the basis of false, artificial perspective.

There are also however those whose issue seems to be that because people illegally immigrate, there is no "control." In fact, the opposite is true -- too much control is in place, too many fees and paperwork, otherwise they would not be risking death in the desert to come to America. What people don't understand is that it takes money to immigrate, money that if many immigrants had to begin with, they wouldn't be immigrating at all.

The issue, then, is to make legal immigration more accessible. The solution is not, and should not, be to encourage illegal immigration. And if you truly believe that if they had the money to legally immigrate "and wouldn't be immgrating at all," then you are largely ignorant of the thousands of people who legally immigrate each year. Clearly, they have the means, and yet they choose not to stay and, what's that, oh yeah--immigrate!


What? If they work for those wages AND live off them, Europeans and Americans CAN live off those same wages, they just prefer not to. Sorry, that's what competition IS. If you eliminate a competing economic group simply because they're successfully competing, that's the antithesis of 'fair competition.'

Economics. Citizens in Europe and America could technically live off such wages, but the cost of living in either place is significantly greater than, say, Morocco or Mexico. So, in actuality, the wages earned by illegal workers would not be enough for Americans or Europeans to live off of. It is not simply a matter of "choosing not to."

The alternative is worse than a tougher job market. It's them going back to fascist tinpot dictatorships with no civil rights, no freedom, no economy, to possible political persecution, repression, starvation, disease and death.

1) I hope you do know that dictatorship is not always fascism.
2) They are immigrating away from someplace with more stringent economic, political and social controls, yes, but there is a legal recourse to enter a foreign nation.


I agree, and anti-immigration "fences" or walls isn't the answer. Unfortunately, the USA seems to be more inclined to use it's resources - well, MY resources, since I pay taxes - to do things like invade Iraq, or fund Israel's military, instead of helping anyone's economy.

Do you fund the entire United States with your taxes? Gee, so do 250 million others. That's the beauty of a representative democracy--you get a voice in what happens, you pay your share of taxes, and the collective voice of everyone is taken into account. You may disagree on an individual basis, but you are not the only taxpaying citizen. I hope you keep that in mind.


Just a few thoughts.

There is no contradiciton in opposing illegal immigration and supporting immigration in general. In hearing what you want to hear, suddenly anyone who opposes foreign nationals entering the nation's borders without following the legal processes set out is opposing all immigration. If you're fine being that closed-minded, it's your prerogatice. Just remember that your argument fails on the basis of false, artificial perspective.

As I said, supporting laws that oppose immigration is the same as opposing immigration.

If you indeed supported immigration, you would be calling for an end to those laws and universal amnesty granted.

Just a few thoughts.

Okay, but next time try to use quotes for individual thoughts by the post you're responding to, then un-quote for your own response. Makes it easier to deal with.

The issue, then, is to make legal immigration more accessible. The solution is not, and should not, be to encourage illegal immigration. And if you truly belienve that if they had the money to legally immigrate "and wouldn't be immgrating at all," then you are largely ignorant of the thousands of people who legally immigrate each year. Clearly, they have the means, and yet they choose not to stay and, what's that, oh yeah--immigrate!

I didn't mean to imply that everyone who immigrates can only do so illegally. But a good many of them - again, the poorer ones - can't go through the legal and financial loopholes.

I definitely agree that legal immigration needs to be more accessible. But in the meantime I don't see illegal immigration as the evil, invading crime that many border control nuts do.


Economics. Citizens in Europe and America could technically live off such wages, but the cost of living in either place is significantly greater than, say, Morocco or Mexico. So, in actuality, the wages earned by illegal workers would not be enough for Americans or Europeans to live off of. It is not simply a matter of "choosing not to."

But we're talking about illegal immigrants who DO live in Europe and America, and work for those wages. Clearly, if they can survive on such wages, so can anyone else. It's just most prefer (choose) not to because their education and skills are such that they would prefer higher-paying jobs, and more well-to-do benefits. Big house, five cars. To me that should signal that Americans and Europeans need to cling to the advantages they get with higher education, not try to deprive others of advantages in order to make it easier to compete.


1) I hope you do know that dictatorship is not always fascism.

True, but largely irrelevant. The conditions are arguably equally bad in many third world countries.


2) They are immigrating away from someplace with more stringent economic, political and social controls, yes, but there is a legal recourse to enter a foreign nation.

Is there? I'm not so confident of that.


Do you fund the entire United States with your taxes? Gee, so do 250 million others. That's the beauty of a representative democracy--you get a voice in what happens, you pay your share of taxes, and the collective voice of everyone is taken into account. You may disagree on an individual basis, but you are not the only taxpaying citizen. I hope you keep that in mind.

Oh, I know that, and that's why I rarely use the "I'm a taxpayer" line. But I do wind up paying for things I don't agree with as a result, just as many folks in my country complain about how they pay for "illegals." I can learn to live with it - I mean, hell, it's either that or go to prison for tax evasion - but then so can others.

As I said, supporting laws that oppose immigration is the same as opposing immigration.

If you indeed supported immigration, you would be calling for an end to those laws and universal amnesty granted.

So you transform the argument into all or nothing. It is impossible, then, to be in favor of legal immigration so long as "legal" can still be applied to the phrase. Yet so long as national boundaries exist, and they do and will for a very long time, such forms of immigration--without controls--will not and cannot exist. To do so would be to destroy the concept of a nation. Whether or not this is a good idea or not is not pertinent to the debate. The simple reality is, immigration laws need to exist insofar as the preservation of national identity is of concern.

So you transform the argument into all or nothing. It is impossible, then, to be in favor of legal immigration so long as "legal" can still be applied to the phrase. Yet so long as national boundaries exist, and they do and will for a very long time, such forms of immigration--without controls--will not and cannot exist. To do so would be to destroy the concept of a nation. Whether or not this is a good idea or not is not pertinent to the debate.

You are quite correct in one aspect, as long as you think of immigration on its own as illegal, you are opposed to immigration.

As for the rest, complete bullocks. The movement of people (without uniforms and guns, that is) has nothing to do with the concept of a nation or sovereignty.

Why can a country that is completely open to everyone not have sovereignty and or have a national identity?

The simple reality is, immigration laws need to exist insofar as the preservation of national identity is of concern.

And why is that any sort of concern?

Opening your borders to anyone who wants in is just asking for problems. We already have our own poor people to deal with. What makes you think we want a bunch of immigrants who are not only poor, but can't even speak English?

Would you let someone sneak into your house at night and watch your TV? Of course not. So why are you suggesting we should let people sneak into our country and use our school and our hospitals and our police?

In America we respect he rule of law. If you can't be bothered to follow our laws and immigrate legally then why should we welcome you into our country?

And don't tell me I'm anti-immigration; I'm a first generation immigrant myself.

Why can a country that is completely open to everyone not have sovereignty and or have a national identity?

Without borders you no longer have a country. You have a plot of land used by anyone who can manage to get onto it.

We already have our own poor people to deal with.

Fucking poor.

We should be sending them to Mexico.

Without borders you no longer have a country. You have a plot of land used by anyone who can manage to get onto it.

What is the deal with everyone arguing that an open border is no border?

Opening your borders to anyone who wants in is just asking for problems. We already have our own poor people to deal with. What makes you think we want a bunch of immigrants who are not only poor, but can't even speak English?

Let's see the list of charges.

1) Poor
2) Can't speak English

Crap, there goes the GOP's voter base!


Would you let someone sneak into your house at night and watch your TV? Of course not. So why are you suggesting we should let people sneak into our country and use our school and our hospitals and our police?

Because my house is my private property. My nation is not. I hope you understand the difference between private and public.

In America we respect he rule of law. If you can't be bothered to follow our laws and immigrate legally then why should we welcome you into our country?

Why is this stupid phrase, or something like it, ALWAYS used. "America is a nation of laws." God damn, that's ridiculous. Nazi Germany was also a nation of laws. Doesn't mean every law in the book is a good one, does it? Doesn't mean that there are plenty of laws Americans break, does it? The way you talk, you would like to deport anyone who's a criminal, yes? Except I guess not everyone who is a criminal has the additional evil of not speaking good English...

Okay, but next time try to use quotes for individual thoughts by the post you're responding to, then un-quote for your own response. Makes it easier to deal with.

I was trying to be lazy...

I didn't mean to imply that everyone who immigrates can only do so illegally. But a good many of them - again, the poorer ones - can't go through the legal and financial loopholes.

Very true. But it simply means that we should be fighting to relax the process for legal immigration, and not necessarily supporting the illegal immigration that is currently at issue.

I definitely agree that legal immigration needs to be more accessible. But in the meantime I don't see illegal immigration as the evil, invading crime that many border control nuts do.

It is definitely a major issue, and border control should certainly be tightened. A border that is as openly exploited as the US-Mexico boundary should at least be controlled. National security is an all-too cliche phrase these days, and yet it extends beyond just the threat of terrorism: such large numbers of undocumented workers could very well have unpredictable results in terms of the economic balance.

But we're talking about illegal immigrants who DO live in Europe and America, and work for those wages. Clearly, if they can survive on such wages, so can anyone else. It's just most prefer (choose) not to because their education and skills are such that they would prefer higher-paying jobs, and more well-to-do benefits. Big house, five cars. To me that should signal that Americans and Europeans need to cling to the advantages they get with higher education, not try to deprive others of advantages in order to make it easier to compete.

Well, not too averse to your argument here. I think the largest bone of contention, so to speak, is the idea that these wage-earners are not American citizens. But I agree, those low-paying menial tasks are much better in the hands of a large number of willing workers than the monetary strain American citizens would place on the companies, particularly with our propensity toward all kinds of social benefits.

True, but largely irrelevant. The conditions are arguably equally bad in many third world countries.

Yes, it just gets my ire up when I read/hear people mistakenly use different forms of government interchangeably. Pet peeve, I guess.

Is there? I'm not so confident of that.

For most countries, there is a legal process to naturalize, and should be considered before reverting to illegal means.

Oh, I know that, and that's why I rarely use the "I'm a taxpayer" line. But I do wind up paying for things I don't agree with as a result, just as many folks in my country complain about how they pay for "illegals." I can learn to live with it - I mean, hell, it's either that or go to prison for tax evasion - but then so can others.

Absolutely. We've all got our share--and our voice. Just making sure you weren't one of those who assume that because you pay taxes, your opinion should automatically be given the weight you think it deserves.

You are quite correct in one aspect, as long as you think of immigration on its own as illegal, you are opposed to immigration.

As for the rest, complete bullocks. The movement of people (without uniforms and guns, that is) has nothing to do with the concept of a nation or sovereignty.

Why can a country that is completely open to everyone not have sovereignty and or have a national identity?



And why is that any sort of concern?

I don't consider immigration on its own as illegal. Your arguments seem to suggest that.

Here's a quick answer--I'll get back with a longer one--but in a nutshell, national identity is the concept that its citizens share a common interest in a future as a nation, a common bond through historic events (source of national pride), and a present sense of community among those within said community. An open nation cannot have all these things, as its population would be fluid. National identity is the primary concern today--look at the news. Iran wants nukes. Iraq is a hellhole (no real national identity--propped up by the US). Global events occur as a result of national identity.

I was trying to be lazy...


I guess you succeeded. :p


Very true. But it simply means that we should be fighting to relax the process for legal immigration, and not necessarily supporting the illegal immigration that is currently at issue.

True, but my main issue - you could call it a pet peeve - is people who see illegal immigration as equivalent to rape or, even more ludicrously, invasion and genocide.

(Yes, there are people who make those comparisons.)

It is definitely a major issue, and border control should certainly be tightened. A border that is as openly exploited as the US-Mexico boundary should at least be controlled. National security is an all-too cliche phrase these days, and yet it extends beyond just the threat of terrorism: such large numbers of undocumented workers could very well have unpredictable results in terms of the economic balance.

I dunno about that last one. I mean, from what I can tell there are some hard numbers about the number of illegal immigrants, and certainly the anti-immigration crowd is absolutely positive they can tell who is an "illegal" or not. (Often I daresay, by looking at someone.) So it's not all that unknown just because they are not officially 'documentented.'


Yes, it just gets my ire up when I read/hear people mistakenly use different forms of government interchangeably. Pet peeve, I guess.

Yeah... but it's admittedly hard to make accurate generalizations about politics. Hence we get terms like "liberal" that mean both pro- and anti-liberty, depending on who is saying it. In my usage I was just referring to repressive, negative forms of governments.

For most countries, there is a legal process to naturalize, and should be considered before reverting to illegal means.

Of course, but I don't think most illegal immigrants are refusing to consider it - they consider it, and then decide that making an illegal trek through hundreds of miles of desert is a better option. Which should say something about the processes we have to offer... all too often these processes serve a function not substantially different from, say, a guard wall patrolled by soldiers.

Absolutely. We've all got our share--and our voice. Just making sure you weren't one of those who assume that because you pay taxes, your opinion should automatically be given the weight you think it deserves.

Hmm, well it does deserve more weight than those who don't pay taxes. Not, however, that I see paying taxes as "paying for" my rights in any way. Just that for us the concept of how government spends, is less politically abstract - it hits us right in every paycheck.

I don't consider immigration on its own as illegal. Your arguments seem to suggest that.

Then why do you support the laws that make it so?

Here's a quick answer--I'll get back with a longer one--but in a nutshell, national identity is the concept that its citizens share a common interest in a future as a nation, a common bond through historic events (source of national pride), and a present sense of community among those within said community. An open nation cannot have all these things, as its population would be fluid.

Don't bother with the long answer, I don't value any of those outside a sense of community, and that will exist on small levels where needed, regardless of immigration policies.

National identity is the primary concern today--look at the news. Iran wants nukes. Iraq is a hellhole (no real national identity--propped up by the US). Global events occur as a result of national identity.

In other words, national identity = overreaching and irresponsibile governments?

Why would we want that?

[And Iraq was a hellhole when it had national identity as well.]

ok, i'm curious...
[Then why do you support the laws that make it so?
Can you link what laws make Immigration itself Illegal?

I know that Immigration outside of the defined procedures is illegal, but Immigration itself is not illegal.

ok, i'm curious...
[
Can you link what laws make Immigration itself Illegal?

I know that Immigration outside of the defined procedures is illegal, but Immigration itself is not illegal.

Immigration by itself is illegal, immigration within quotas and undue documentation is legal.

Immigration by itself is illegal, immigration within quotas and undue documentation is legal.

no, Immigration is Immigration.
Immigration within set procedures is legal.
Immigration outside of set procedures is Illegal.
Immigration in and of itself is neither Legal nor Illegal.

it's like Lying.
Lying isn't Legal or Illegal.
but lying under oath during a trial is illegal.
Lying to protect National secrets is Legal.

no, Immigration is Immigration.
Immigration within set procedures is legal.
Immigration outside of set procedures is Illegal.
Immigration in and of itself is neither Legal nor Illegal.

it's like Lying.
Lying isn't Legal or Illegal.
but lying under oath during a trial is illegal.
Lying to protect National secrets is Legal.


There are qualifications required to make lying illegal, as you pointed out, but the qualifications for immigration are required to make it legal.


Lying is legal by norm, immigration is legal by exception.

Golgothastan, dude. You pwn.

the United States (the freest nation on Earth)

Bull-caca.

bullshit



Stupid apologist argument. I am not opposed to immigration, I just support laws that are opposed to immigration.


I don't think your thinking to clearly on this one. I am going to paraphrase what the poster said. He is against illegal immigration not legal immigration. How is it difficult to figure that one out? There are alot of people out there that think like this including myself. As for me I am married to a legal immigrant. So is that bullshit?

I don't think your thinking to clearly on this one. I am going to paraphrase what the poster said. He is against illegal immigration not legal immigration. How is it difficult to figure that one out? There are alot of people out there that think like this including myself. As for me I am married to a legal immigrant. So is that bullshit?

Marrying a legal (or illegal) immigrant is not bullshit.

Talking about how you are ok with immigration but support laws that make immigration illegal is bullshit.

I think you are confusing the right's hatred of illegal immigration with legal immigration. Legal immigration is fine, and encouraged. Il Legal immigrants are good people. Illegal-IE "Jose, quick! Cut the fence!" are not.

There are qualifications required to make lying illegal, as you pointed out, but the qualifications for immigration are required to make it legal.


Lying is legal by norm, immigration is legal by exception.symantics.
it can also be as easily said

There are qualifications required to make lying legal, as you pointed out, and there are qualifications for immigration to make it Illegal.and yes, there are qualifications to make Immigration illegal.

Legal immigration is fine, and encouraged.

Were that true, they would support lifting immigration restrictions, not enforcing them more stringently.

hmm so a country with no border control and not knowing who is comming in and out of your country is a sovereign nation?yes. next question.name one then, Name a nation that fits that description. that includes no showing of Passport (a qualification and a way of controlling who comes in or out) for any immigrant/visitor.

I don't guess that you bothered to read how the USA has the most legal immigrants than the world combined. Maybe you should be bitching to those other countries who prevent people from migrating.

Record proves that the USA is #1 when it comes to opening up your country to foreigners.
IRRELEVANT.Why Irrelevant? only because it proves that the USA's procedures are not as bad as some make them out to be?

Is it Irrelevant to you because it shoots down the claim of so many Illegals that "Getting into the US legally is impossible"?

symantics.
it can also be as easily said

and yes, there are qualifications to make Immigration illegal.

Immigration on its own without further action or outside special situations is illegal, immigration is legal by exception. It is not semantics unless you can show me that an immigrant is not required to perform some other action to make his immigration legal.

Why Irrelevant? only because it proves that the USA's procedures are not as bad as some make them out to be?

Is it Irrelevant to you because it shoots down the claim of so many Illegals that "Getting into the US legally is impossible"?

I don't judge our legal system based on how bad another country's legal system is.

And that we allow the most immigrants in does not mean that we are the best on immigration.

Immigration on its own without further action or outside special situations is illegal, immigration is legal by exception. It is not semantics unless you can show me that an immigrant is not required to perform some other action to make his immigration legal.Immigration is intergration into a society. you are becoming a part of that nation and reaping the benefits, (yes even if it's to only work or to learn) so the Government needs to know that. while they are here, the GOVERNMENT is responsible for their well being, thus, again, the Government needs to know who's here.

How do you let the Government know? by filling out forms and paying the processing fee.

you want to use the facilites in a Bank? open an account? you cannot just walk in and depost money... you have to fill out the forms to set up an account. (and who insures the money in those accounts? the Federal Government.)

you want a phone? you cannot just buy one and plug it in and expect to make calls. you (again) have to sign up, let the Phone Company know you're going to be using the phone at X Address.

You wanna drive? you need to get a licence to drive. you wanna work in the USA but you live in another country? you need to tell the US Government "Hey, I'm comming over to work"

Someone wants to stay at your house? they gotta let you know first.

and before you say there is a difference between Private and Government property, I say yes, it's the same difference between Your room in your parents house and your Parent's House.

I don't judge our legal system based on how bad another country's legal system is.

And that we allow the most immigrants in does not mean that we are the best on immigration.
LOL!!!

no it just means that if we loosen laws, and allow anyone who want's in to come in, you will find our resources taxed beyond it's capability. more health problems would occure, resources would drain faster than you could ever imagine.

Talking about how you are ok with immigration but support laws that make immigration illegal is bullshit.

but if those laws are already in place (and they are) and we are STILL letting more people in than any other nation, how is Immigration being Illegal hurting.

LOL!!!

no it just means that if we loosen laws, and allow anyone who want's in to come in, you will find our resources taxed beyond it's capability. more health problems would occure, resources would drain faster than you could ever imagine.

The economy is not a zero-sum game.

but if those laws are already in place (and they are) and we are STILL letting more people in than any other nation, how is Immigration being Illegal hurting.

When it is enforced and uprooting people from what they want to be their homes, it is hurting far more than I would like.

The economy is not a zero-sum game.the economy won't be the only resource taxed.

When it is enforced and uprooting people from what they want to be their homes, it is hurting far more than I would like.
what's the difference between an Immigrant who went through the system and is now in the USA and an Illegal Immigrant who snuck across the boarder, got themself some Illegal ID and a job? who's better?

the economy won't be the only resource taxed.

The economy is the collection of all resources.

what's the difference between an Immigrant who went through the system and is now in the USA and an Illegal Immigrant who snuck across the boarder, got themself some Illegal ID and a job? who's better?

Neither. One was able to work with an oppressive force, one wasn't.

The economy is the collection of all resources.Medical care does not fall under Economy. social and emergency Services also don't fall under the Economy.

Neither. One was able to work with an oppressive force, one wasn't.
if you think neither is better, then why are slapping the person who entered the country legally in the face? you just bascially said "your efforts to obey the laws of the Nation you are attempting to intergrate with means nothing." you just insulted them by saying that those broke the law won't be punished.

Then why do you support the laws that make it so?



Don't bother with the long answer, I don't value any of those outside a sense of community, and that will exist on small levels where needed, regardless of immigration policies.



In other words, national identity = overreaching and irresponsibile governments?

Why would we want that?

[And Iraq was a hellhole when it had national identity as well.]


Whether or not you value any of the others is irrelevant; they are all critical aspects of defining a nation in the modern sense. I recommend to you Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities--Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism."

Now, overreaching and irresponsible governments are a result of national identity, but are not national identity in and of itself. It is because of national identity that nations behave the way they do--ultimately, in the interest of each respective nation to itself. Why would we want that? I don't know. Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with you--we wouldn't want that. But it's there all the same, whether we want it or not. Nations define the world today.

And your first question: I will simply state that I am in favor of laws regulating immigration. Illegal immigration is just that: illegal. Against the law. I am not against immigration through established legal processes. I am, however, against immigration that circumvents the law. Should something be done? Certainly. Should we abolish all immigration controls? For the sake of the United States, absolutely not.

name one then, Name a nation that fits that description. that includes no showing of Passport (a qualification and a way of controlling who comes in or out) for any immigrant/visitor.

i don't recall saying that any currently existing state does so, only that it would not undo their sovereignty if they did.

Were that true, they would support lifting immigration restrictions, not enforcing them more stringently.

seriously, i've never understood that attempted cop out. it just doesn't make sense.

hmm so a country with no border control and not knowing who is comming in and out of your country is a sovereign nation?
yes. next question.


i don't recall saying that any currently existing state does so, only that it would not undo their sovereignty if they did.
yes it would. with no border control it can be overrun and run down to poverty, be open to non-military takeover, outside influences and even collapse from within. A country's authority only extends to it's borders, but it's influence can be inserted into other countries. A country with NO border security will not survive as a country.

yes it would. with no border control it can be overrun and run down to poverty, be open to non-military takeover, outside influences and even collapse from within. A country's authority only extends to it's borders, but it's influence can be inserted into other countries. A country with NO border security will not survive as a country.

what the hell is a non-military takeover? and how would becoming impoverished (assuming for the moment the idea that immigration causes poverty, which is just ridiculous) do anything to sovereignty?

what the hell is a non-military takeover? and how would becoming impoverished (assuming for the moment the idea that immigration causes poverty, which is just ridiculous) do anything to sovereignty?

a non military takeover? anything not requiring military violence.

How can a country with no border security be made into poverty? very easily since you won't know who's a citizen and who isn't.

Go in and slowly undermine their economy. Send your agents in and with the proper forged documents, you can even instill them into various levels of the Government. (after all, they have no border control, they won't know who's an immigrant and who's native.) then you can slowy change their policies as you keep inserting more of your people in... heck you can even have outsiders influencing the people inside to revolt.

Spying and Sabatours can move freely since there is no border security. No border security means no searches, no checking of passports, nothing. An unscrupulous group can wipe out cities and let you struggle to rebuild... then wipe out another city... remember, you are a Nation, so you will have Enemies. and this can be done without Military action.

and when your country is nearly broke paying for international aid...

you will be absorbed by neighboring countries.

as for Military takeovers. look at Hawaii.

How can a country with no border security be made into poverty? very easily since you won't know who's a citizen and who isn't.

why the hell not?

why the hell not?
Because Slaughterhouse five said...
hmm so a country with no border control and not knowing who is comming in and out of your country is a sovereign nation?

and you said YES!

so no border control means no names being taken, no Passports being shown, no restrictions what so ever.

that is why you cannot name a country that does this becaus they no longer exsist.

so no border control means no names being taken, no Passports being shown, no restrictions what so ever.

yeah, and?

i freely travel between washington and idaho at least three times a week without any regulation whatsoever. no border guards, no passports, no criminal record checks, no nothing. but they still won't let me vote in washington. and washington and idaho still exist as politically distinguishable entities. funny, that.

yeah, and?

i freely travel between washington and idaho at least three times a week without any regulation whatsoever. no border guards, no passports, no criminal record checks, no nothing. but they still won't let me vote in washington. and washington and idaho still exist as politically distinguishable entities. funny, that.Funny, I didn't know that Washington and idaho were sovereign nations... :rolleyes:

Funny, I didn't know that Washington and idaho were sovereign nations... :rolleyes:

the only reason they aren't is because they have joined a larger political union. their lack of border guards has fuck all to do with it. but they are sovereign states within a federal union. and they do nicely destroy your argument in it's entirety.

the only reason they aren't is because they have joined a larger political union. their lack of border guards has fuck all to do with it. but they are sovereign states within a federal union. and they do nicely destroy your argument in it's entirety.seeing that you cannot tell the difference between a State and a Nation, and that you think that each state of the USA is a Sovereign State...
and you think you still won... :rolleyes:

I shall leave you now in your own little world.
Feel free to join us in the Real World.

seeing that you cannot tell the difference between a State and a Nation, and that you think that each state of the USA is a Sovereign State...
and you think you still won... :rolleyes:

I shall leave you now in your own little world.
Feel free to join us in the Real World.

you have yet to explain how it is the lack of border guards that removes any sovereignty at all from states. how it is even at all related in the slightest would be good. you also have yet to explain how it is that both washington and idaho exist as seperate entities despite said lack of border guards. also, how that lack prevents them from keeping track of who can vote and run for office and get benefits, etc. in each of them. and how they avoid having broke-ass idahoes destroying washington's economy. but do give it a shot.

you have yet to explain how it is the lack of border guards that removes any sovereignty at all from states. how it is even at all related in the slightest would be good. you also have yet to explain how it is that both washington and idaho exist as seperate entities despite said lack of border guards. also, how that lack prevents them from keeping track of who can vote and run for office and get benefits, etc. in each of them. and how they avoid having broke-ass idahoes destroying washington's economy. but do give it a shot.
simple THE STATES THAT MAKE UP THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE NOT SOVEREIGN STATES, they are also not Sovereign Nations. Thus I don't need to argue my point because you self-destructed your own argument.

you cannot prove that any Sovereign Nation without border security of any sort will remain Sovereign, you cannot produce ONE surviving Sovereign Nation that has NO Border Security and you even admitted that there is no such Nation.

You cannot prove that a Nation can hold on to it's Sovereignty without Border Security and you offer bails of hay as strawmen to try to prop up your failing points.

but please continue, I haven't laughed this hard for a long time.

simple THE STATES THAT MAKE UP THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE NOT SOVEREIGN STATES, they are also not Sovereign Nations. Thus I don't need to argue my point because you self-destructed your own argument.

you cannot prove that any Sovereign Nation without border security of any sort will remain Sovereign, you cannot produce ONE surviving Sovereign Nation that has NO Border Security and you even admitted that there is no such Nation.

You cannot prove that a Nation can hold on to it's Sovereignty without Border Security and you offer bails of hay as strawmen to try to prop up your failing points.

but please continue, I haven't laughed this hard for a long time.

analogies aren't your strong suit, are they?

analogies aren't your strong suit, are they?

yeah, and?

i freely travel between washington and idaho at least three times a week without any regulation whatsoever. no border guards, no passports, no criminal record checks, no nothing. but they still won't let me vote in washington. and washington and idaho still exist as politically distinguishable entities. funny, that.

the only reason they aren't is because they have joined a larger political union. their lack of border guards has fuck all to do with it. but they are sovereign states within a federal union. and they do nicely destroy your argument in it's entirety.
stronger than yours since you were not presenting Analogies but Examples.

please try again.

stronger than yours since you were not presenting Analogies but Examples.

please try again.

perhaps i was unclear before. add the words "in an analogous case..." before my wa and id post, and remember that it was in response to the notion that without border checkpoints you cannot tell citizens from non-citizens and political entities would actually be unable to exist at all.

i begin to suspect that you don't know what sovereignty is.

perhaps i was unclear before. add the words "in an analogous case..." before my wa and id post, and remember that it was in response to the notion that without border checkpoints you cannot tell citizens from non-citizens and political entities would actually be unable to exist at all.

i begin to suspect that you don't know what sovereignty is.

that's alot of words to leave out. :rolleyes:

and I know what Sovereignty is. I live in a state that was once a Sovereign Nation in it's recent past and it had very rudimentary border control.

and since you cannot produce any Sovereign Nation that exsists today without any form of Border Control... your claim that any Nation without border control can retain it's sovereignty is only speculation.

that's alot of words to leave out. :rolleyes:

not really. it's the only reasonable interpretation given the flow of conversation.

your claim that any Nation without border control can retain it's sovereignty is only speculation.

demonstrate the logically necessary connection between having checkpoints at borders and having political authority over the area within those borders.

not really. it's the only reasonable interpretation given the flow of conversation.if you follow the flow of conversation I ask for examples and you provided Washington and Idaho states as those examples.


demonstrate the logically necessary connection between having checkpoints at borders and having political authority over the area within those borders.
ahh... now it's checkpoints at borders. checkpoints at borders is only one aspect of Border Security.

having a place where visitors and immigrants entering a Solveriegn NATION places control of who enters at one extreme and a record of who's coming from where on the other. usually checkpoints also provides a filter to help with security. (criminals, known terrorists and even victims of slave rings or kidnappings, preventing contrabands from entering or leaving the country.)

What? If they work for those wages AND live off them, Europeans and Americans CAN live off those same wages, they just prefer not to. Sorry, that's what competition IS. If you eliminate a competing economic group simply because they're successfully competing, that's the antithesis of 'fair competition.'

Well, especially in Europe, most illegal immigrants can't really live from it either.
They are a kind of slaves. They haven't any social security. They can't have a family. They live in poverty. They have to work much harder than the normal European citizean. And they can't simply quit a job - they can't go to the employemnet office.

If they are mistreated - they can't go to the police. The little money they earn they have to pay to the people who brought them to Europe. Perhaps they can even send a few Euros to their families. But only their employers really earn something.


The alternative is worse than a tougher job market. It's them going back to fascist tinpot dictatorships with no civil rights, no freedom, no economy, to possible political persecution, repression, starvation, disease and death.

So I'm sorry if it seems like it's hard on you, but realize it's harder - much harder - on them.

Particularly with the anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner mindset that many Europeans (and Americans) seem to have these days.


It has nothing to with repression that we can't open the jobmarket worldwide. It's just not possible! Would you buy tons of bread of your baker only becasue he has many debts, to throw it away afterwards? Afterwards, you will be the one who is broke. Try to help people is something good. But you should know your limits. If you really want to help the third world, you should support projects over there. Inviting all of them to come to us won't help them in the long run, but it would ruin us.

if you follow the flow of conversation I ask for examples and you provided Washington and Idaho states as those examples.

only if you have reading comprehension issues.

you: name one then

me: i don't recall saying that any currently existing state does so, only that it would not undo their sovereignty if they did.

you: yes it would. with no border control it can be overrun and run down to poverty, be open to non-military takeover, outside influences and even collapse from within... you won't know who's a citizen and who isn't.

me: how would becoming impoverished (assuming for the moment the idea that immigration causes poverty, which is just ridiculous) do anything to sovereignty? and why the hell won't they be able to tell citizens from non-citizens?

you: no border control means no names being taken, no Passports being shown, no restrictions what so ever.

me: yeah, and?

in an analogous case, i freely travel between washington and idaho at least three times a week without any regulation whatsoever. no border guards, no passports, no criminal record checks, no nothing. but they still won't let me vote in washington. and washington and idaho still exist as politically distinguishable entities. funny, that.

you: *hand waving to attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion*

me: you have yet to explain how it is the lack of border guards that removes any sovereignty at all from states. how it is even at all related in the slightest would be good. you also have yet to explain how it is that both washington and idaho exist as seperate entities despite said lack of border guards. also, how that lack prevents them from keeping track of who can vote and run for office and get benefits, etc. in each of them. and how they avoid having broke-ass idahoes destroying washington's economy. but do give it a shot.

you: *hand waving with larger gestures*


now answer the fucking question. how does the lack of border controls between washington and idaho cause either of them to lose their political authority within their borders?

if you think neither is better, then why are slapping the person who entered the country legally in the face? you just bascially said "your efforts to obey the laws of the Nation you are attempting to intergrate with means nothing." you just insulted them by saying that those broke the law won't be punished.

I would consider it more insulting that we make them jump through hoops just to get here, what's more, we institute limits on how many of the individuals of their background can come in, like they are second class or even sheep.

Otherwise, your logic is absolutely terrible, I don't know how I am insulting them in anyway. I think you should apologize for treating them like cattle.

seeing that you cannot tell the difference between a State and a Nation, and that you think that each state of the USA is a Sovereign State...
and you think you still won... :rolleyes:

I shall leave you now in your own little world.
Feel free to join us in the Real World.

He wins because Washington and Idaho can maintain separate political structures while not regulating travel or moving between the two.

Well, especially in Europe, most illegal immigrants can't really live from it either.

"Really live," or just "live?"


They are a kind of slaves. They haven't any social security. They can't have a family.

Heh well, here in the US we are getting used to not having social security.

As for not having a family, if that's true how come people like Ny Nordland express constant fears that illegal immigrants are there to "outbreed" the "native" populations?

They live in poverty. They have to work much harder than the normal European citizean.

Historically, most immigrants anywhere do.

And they can't simply quit a job - they can't go to the employemnet office.

Is the employment office required in order to get a job in Europe? It isn't in the US.


If they are mistreated - they can't go to the police.

Why not?

The little money they earn they have to pay to the people who brought them to Europe. Perhaps they can even send a few Euros to their families. But only their employers really earn something.

Well, that's a problem in that people who bring them to Europe were smugglers, because Europe has such tough border controls that their only way in to Europe was illegally. It's the same here. Increase toughness to get in to a nation, and you increase the rate of exploitation in those who will want to get in no matter what.

It has nothing to with repression that we can't open the jobmarket worldwide. It's just not possible! Would you buy tons of bread of your baker only becasue he has many debts, to throw it away afterwards?

Innovate. Find a more marketable job than "baker."


Inviting all of them to come to us won't help them in the long run, but it would ruin us.

I'm not convinced you'd be "ruined" any more than the US was ruined by the various waves of immigrants, including the "illegals" people are bitching about today.

If you oppose the United States (the freest nation on Earth) the terrorists win.

Hehe. "Freest nation on Earth?" Riiight.

Ever tried to explain open container laws to a Sweed?


I have. It's difficult. After about a half hour, I finally resorted to just saying, "Look, America isn't really all that free. Go ahead and finish your beer, but don't open another one until we've stopped for lunch."

I would consider it more insulting that we make them jump through hoops just to get here, what's more, we institute limits on how many of the individuals of their background can come in, like they are second class or even sheep.

nah, everyone loves a good years long bureaucratic nightmare that automatically rules out vast swaths of people from getting anywhere at all with it and treats the rest as lesser humans at best. it's the only way to respect human dignity at all, really.

only if you have reading comprehension issues.

you: name one then

me: i don't recall saying that any currently existing state does so, only that it would not undo their sovereignty if they did.

you: yes it would. with no border control it can be overrun and run down to poverty, be open to non-military takeover, outside influences and even collapse from within... you won't know who's a citizen and who isn't.

me: how would becoming impoverished (assuming for the moment the idea that immigration causes poverty, which is just ridiculous) do anything to sovereignty? and why the hell won't they be able to tell citizens from non-citizens?

you: no border control means no names being taken, no Passports being shown, no restrictions what so ever.

me: yeah, and?

in an analogous case, i freely travel between washington and idaho at least three times a week without any regulation whatsoever. no border guards, no passports, no criminal record checks, no nothing. but they still won't let me vote in washington. and washington and idaho still exist as politically distinguishable entities. funny, that.

you: *hand waving to attempt to avoid the obvious conclusion*

me: you have yet to explain how it is the lack of border guards that removes any sovereignty at all from states. how it is even at all related in the slightest would be good. you also have yet to explain how it is that both washington and idaho exist as seperate entities despite said lack of border guards. also, how that lack prevents them from keeping track of who can vote and run for office and get benefits, etc. in each of them. and how they avoid having broke-ass idahoes destroying washington's economy. but do give it a shot.

you: *hand waving with larger gestures*


now answer the fucking question. how does the lack of border controls between washington and idaho cause either of them to lose their political authority within their borders?


Yes, you can freely travel between two distinct political entities without undermining their sovereignty. But you're drawing the argument on a tangent. In your example, of course, no passports are needed. But let me point something out. You mentioned yourself: You can't vote. You are a traveller. You have no permanent residence in Washington if you are a broke-ass Idahoan. Travelling between states is not the issue. If you then decide to move to Washington, you have to change and prove your residency. That is how each maintains its sovereignty. Neither loses their political authority within their own borders because 1) They are states, not sovereign nations, within the United States of America (Take a look--USA is the nation. We are discussing national sovereignty. Last time I checked, Washington and Idaho are not nations) and 2) as a traveller, coming from another state, you have civic duties to the state from which you come--ie, taxes. Because each state is part of the United States (the nation), you are bound to the regulations of the state you are a resident in, your current location notwithstanding. If you are a broke-ass Idahoan in Washington and fail to pay Idaho's taxes, you are subject to idaho's laws even though you are in Washington. With sovereign nations, it is not so simple.

Yes, you can freely travel between two distinct political entities without undermining their sovereignty.

exactly

In your example, of course, no passports are needed. But let me point something out. You mentioned yourself: You can't vote. You are a traveller. You have no permanent residence in Washington if you are a broke-ass Idahoan. Travelling between states is not the issue. If you then decide to move to Washington, you have to change and prove your residency. That is how each maintains its sovereignty.

precisely

Neither loses their political authority within their own borders because 1) They are states, not sovereign nations, within the United States of America (Take a look--USA is the nation. We are discussing national sovereignty. Last time I checked, Washington and Idaho are not nations)

utterly irrelevant. see your own damn statement above.

and 2) as a traveller, coming from another state, you have civic duties to the state from which you come--ie, taxes. Because each state is part of the United States (the nation), you are bound to the regulations of the state you are a resident in, your current location notwithstanding. If you are a broke-ass Idahoan in Washington and fail to pay Idaho's taxes, you are subject to idaho's laws even though you are in Washington. With sovereign nations, it is not so simple.

you've never left the country, have you? shit, the u.s. claims you owe them taxes on money made in other countries even if you haven't been to the u.s. in years. and merely leaving the country never gets you entirely off the hook for things you've done elsewhere, except in exceptional circumstances.

Ok, excuse the hyperbole of the title. Still, I do find it odd that in the USA, UK, and other countries, it's often the most anti-communist, right-wing, capitalist parties and individuals who oppose immigration. I know plenty who don't, of course - kudos to them - but those who do, I'm wondering, how on earth do they justify their beliefs?...

...Therefore, I think Pat Buchanan needs to decide: does he oppose immigration, or communism?

Um, Communism believes in unity of labor around the world and the abolition of national boundries. Meaning that workers should be allowed to go wherever there is work for them. Does the phrase "workers of the world unite," sound familiar?

Hehe. "Freest nation on Earth?" Riiight.

Ever tried to explain open container laws to a Sweed?


I have. It's difficult. After about a half hour, I finally resorted to just saying, "Look, America isn't really all that free. Go ahead and finish your beer, but don't open another one until we've stopped for lunch."

I was told that in Texas you can have an open container, but you have to keep it below the level where it can be seen from outside. But he might have meant that if you keep it low, the cops won't see it and pull you over.

Um, Communism believes in unity of labor around the world and the abolition of national boundries. Meaning that workers should be allowed to go wherever there is work for them. Does the phrase "workers of the world unite," sound familiar?

to be fair, the leninists and stalinists setup huge systems of internal passports and the like. so if we take the communism in question to be bolshevism and it's spin-offs, it sort of makes sense.

exactly



precisely



utterly irrelevant. see your own damn statement above.



you've never left the country, have you? shit, the u.s. claims you owe them taxes on money made in other countries even if you haven't been to the u.s. in years. and merely leaving the country never gets you entirely off the hook for things you've done elsewhere, except in exceptional circumstances.

Ha! You are entirely missing the point, my friend. You live in some fantastical alter-reality where states somehow equal nations and travel equals establishing permanent residence. Read my "own damn statement" again. Carefully. Notice I said travel. That was deliberate. I even tried to clarify the difference between transferring permanent residence in a sovereign political entity within a greater sovereign nation as being different than moving to another sovereign nation. Political entity is deliberately ambiguous: In the context of my previous post, I referred to individual states within the United States as maintaining their sovereign indentity without border regulations BECAUSE they are not individual nations but entities within a nation as a whole. Until you realize this, your argument fails on an ignorant preconception of national sovereign indentity.

to be fair, the leninists and stalinists setup huge systems of internal passports and the like. so if we take the communism in question to be bolshevism and it's spin-offs, it sort of makes sense.

Well, I saw both the International Socialist Organization and the Socialist Workers Party at the last immigration rally I went to, both advocating essentially open borders, and the Workers World Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party, in addition to the aforementioned two, at the one before that.

In fact, they were among the few who were willing to go all out - both rallies were clearly intended to offer support for the reformist measures in Congress.

So, as far as the US goes, it doesn't even sort of make sense. Pretty much all the hard left parties and groups are pro-immigrant.

you've never left the country, have you? shit, the u.s. claims you owe them taxes on money made in other countries even if you haven't been to the u.s. in years. and merely leaving the country never gets you entirely off the hook for things you've done elsewhere, except in exceptional circumstances.

One more point: The utterly pretentious (and fallacious) assumption beginning your statement notwithstanding, you have just reinforced my point. The US claims you owe them money made in other nations because you are a legal citizen of the United States. The illegal immigrants in question are emigrating from Mexico, Morocco, Turkey, wherever, but largely in part with the intention of establishing permanent citizenship in a foreign, sovereign nation by circumventing the established legal procedures. This is not maintaining legal citizenship in their home nation, it is an illegal attempt to establish permanent citizenship through immigration. But as long as you continue to dismiss arguments that in fact are completely relevant and effectively counter your own, there really is no point in continuing this debate. You really only see what you want to see.

Ha! You are entirely missing the point, my friend. You live in some fantastical alter-reality where states somehow equal nations

no, they are just damn near perfect analogues for the purposes of this argument.

and travel equals establishing permanent residence.

where would you get a silly idea like that? not from anything i said, that's for sure.

and are you under the impression that i had to fill out official state paperwork to change my residence from wisconsin to idaho when i moved here? cause all you have to do to establish such is to establish a residence.

I even tried to clarify the difference between transferring permanent residence in a sovereign political entity within a greater sovereign nation as being different than moving to another sovereign nation.

well then you failed.

Political entity is deliberately ambiguous: In the context of my previous post, I referred to individual states within the United States as maintaining their sovereign indentity without border regulations BECAUSE they are not individual nations but entities within a nation as a whole. Until you realize this, your argument fails on an ignorant preconception of national sovereign indentity.

explain the relevant conceptual distinction you think you see. how is it the case that idaho and washington would lose their political authority over their own territory if they became independent states but maintained their open border policy. what percisely would change? you guys really need to actually deal with this question if you want to claim my analogy doesn't work. right now, all i see is hand waving.

One more point: The utterly pretentious (and fallacious) assumption beginning your statement notwithstanding, you have just reinforced my point. The US claims you owe them money made in other nations because you are a legal citizen of the United States. The illegal immigrants in question are emigrating from Mexico, Morocco, Turkey, wherever, but largely in part with the intention of establishing permanent citizenship in a foreign, sovereign nation by circumventing the established legal procedures. This is not maintaining legal citizenship in their home nation, it is an illegal attempt to establish permanent citizenship through immigration. But as long as you continue to dismiss arguments that in fact are completely relevant and effectively counter your own, there really is no point in continuing this debate. You really only see what you want to see.

point the first, one does not abandon citizenship merely by leaving the country. nor do you automatically do so by becoming a citizen of another.

point the second, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Ok, excuse the hyperbole of the title. Still, I do find it odd that in the USA, UK, and other countries, it's often the most anti-communist, right-wing, capitalist parties and individuals who oppose immigration. I know plenty who don't, of course - kudos to them - but those who do, I'm wondering, how on earth do they justify their beliefs?

It's not simply about the free movement of labour: more, it's that it's not "your" country they're coming into. Individuals don't own nations, and to suggest that the "native citizens" or whatever of a particular nation do have some inherent stake in it, and a right to move within it in search of employment that someone from outside does not seems decidedly communal. After all, it's a fairly basic principle of capitalism that individuals have the right to do with their property as they will. Hence they shouldn't have to give up as taxes. Furthermore, whatever rights exist in the public sphere can be modified on private property: I could say that no one may say "fuck" in my house, but it wouldn't be oppressing your freedom of speech, because you're voluntary relinquishing that right as you move onto my property (much as Jolt and NS can set rules on content for us without running afoul of free speech laws).

So, then, if I decide I want to let some people onto my property - and so long as they don't go onto your property - what right do you to tell me to stop doing so? That's not just undermining freedom of association, but the very principle of property rights. This extends to employment: an employer has the right to choose which workers they hire, and keep on. Telling them they can't employ immigrants is an infringement of that choice.

Therefore, I think Pat Buchanan needs to decide: does he oppose immigration, or communism?


Argument #1 : Loss of distinctive national culture.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505509

But the Communist party of the US supports Immigration.
http://www.cpusa.org/immigrantrights
(They also hate Bush but who doesn't)

point the first, one does not abandon citizenship merely by leaving the country. nor do you automatically do so by becoming a citizen of another.

point the second, what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

No, one does not abandon citizenship by leaving the country. But we are discussing here people who seek to enter a country through illegal means. What is at issue here is that these same illegal immigrants seek to establish a residency and citizenship without legal recognition from the nation in which they enter. This is the crux; the illegality of entering a sovereign nation without the consent of said nation.

Second, it has to do with your constant dismissal of legitimate arguments as "hand waving" and "irrelevant"--when, in fact, you simply do not wish to acknowledge that you may be mistaken.

Um, Communism believes in unity of labor around the world and the abolition of national boundries. Meaning that workers should be allowed to go wherever there is work for them. Does the phrase "workers of the world unite," sound familiar?

The guy who posted above you arguing vehemently for the illegals is called Free Soviets. I just find that rather amusing. Good show, to you, you are quite right. The manipulation of Corporatists and mush-headed One-Worlders to turn their violation of sovereignty, Democracy and national will into a support of Capitalism is as ludicrous as it is insulting.

Ok, excuse the hyperbole of the title. Still, I do find it odd that in the USA, UK, and other countries, it's often the most anti-communist, right-wing, capitalist parties and individuals who oppose immigration. I know plenty who don't, of course - kudos to them - but those who do, I'm wondering, how on earth do they justify their beliefs?

It's not simply about the free movement of labour: more, it's that it's not "your" country they're coming into. Individuals don't own nations, and to suggest that the "native citizens" or whatever of a particular nation do have some inherent stake in it, and a right to move within it in search of employment that someone from outside does not seems decidedly communal. After all, it's a fairly basic principle of capitalism that individuals have the right to do with their property as they will. Hence they shouldn't have to give up as taxes. Furthermore, whatever rights exist in the public sphere can be modified on private property: I could say that no one may say "fuck" in my house, but it wouldn't be oppressing your freedom of speech, because you're voluntary relinquishing that right as you move onto my property (much as Jolt and NS can set rules on content for us without running afoul of free speech laws).

So, then, if I decide I want to let some people onto my property - and so long as they don't go onto your property - what right do you to tell me to stop doing so? That's not just undermining freedom of association, but the very principle of property rights. This extends to employment: an employer has the right to choose which workers they hire, and keep on. Telling them they can't employ immigrants is an infringement of that choice.

Therefore, I think Pat Buchanan needs to decide: does he oppose immigration, or communism?

Argument # 2 : Are they really economically beneficial?


Original immigrants on welfare
Half of the first immigrants to Norway in the first half of the 1970s are now living on state payments.
...........

"I was surprised by how great the fall was, and how many immigrants who are caught up in various forms of welfare benefits. These are people who came here to work, not to flee from war and persecution," said Knut Røed, one of the authors of the study.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1514123.ece

no, they are just damn near perfect analogues for the purposes of this argument.

Perfect? Not even close. Political boundaries within a nation are hardly germaine when discussing an issue of national sovereignty.

where would you get a silly idea like that? not from anything i said, that's for sure.

and are you under the impression that i had to fill out official state paperwork to change my residence from wisconsin to idaho when i moved here? cause all you have to do to establish such is to establish a residence.

explain the relevant conceptual distinction you think you see. how is it the case that idaho and washington would lose their political authority over their own territory if they became independent states but maintained their open border policy. what percisely would change?

Ah, exactly! This is where your false analogy fails: you can establish a new residence because states (as in those within the US) are not sovereign nations. You are still within the nation of the United States of America. If you emigrate to Canada, it is then that you must fill out the appropriate paperwork if you desire to establish legal residency. (note: legal) This, again, is the issue. If you slip across the border to Canada and build a home there, without first attaining the government's consent, you are breaking the law. This is the purpose of national borders: If you can move freely from one place to the next, it would be nearly impossible to distinguish foreigners from citizens. Indeed, the idea of a citizen would veritably cease to exist, and with it the concept of foreigner. Political entities, sovereign nations, would cease to exist. The entire concept of a sovereign nation rests on the foundation of political boundaries that differentiate between citizens and foreigners. That's it.

But we are discussing here people who seek to enter a country through illegal means. What is at issue here is that these same illegal immigrants seek to establish a residency and citizenship without legal recognition from the nation in which they enter. This is the crux; the illegality of entering a sovereign nation without the consent of said nation.

my, you are confused, aren't you? the issue here is one of a legally established policy of open borders. do try to keep up.

Second, it has to do with your constant dismissal of legitimate arguments as "hand waving" and "irrelevant"--when, in fact, you simply do not wish to acknowledge that you may be mistaken.

show me how. demonstrate, motherfucker.

idaho and washington are currently distinct political entities (though part of a federal system) with political authority within their borders and an official policy of open borders between them. now we imagine that they become independent from the federal union but retain the same exact border policy they had before. lay out your argument that starts from this premise and concludes with the statement "therefore idaho and washington cannot be sovereign political entities." it is incumbent on you to demonstrate why the analogy fundamentally does not work. merely pointing out that it is an analogy doesn't work.

so, what do you got?

Ah, exactly! This is where your false analogy fails: you can establish a new residence because states (as in those within the US) are not sovereign nations. You are still within the nation of the United States of America. If you emigrate to Canada, it is then that you must fill out the appropriate paperwork if you desire to establish legal residency. (note: legal) This, again, is the issue. If you slip across the border to Canada and build a home there, without first attaining the government's consent, you are breaking the law.

so the analogy fails because it is an analogy and because canada doesn't have an open border policy? come on, that's stupid.

if it were the case that canada's laws were such that you were allowed to just go up there and establish residency, then you would be a resident of canada once you had done so. hooray.

This is the purpose of national borders: If you can move freely from one place to the next, it would be nearly impossible to distinguish foreigners from citizens. Indeed, the idea of a citizen would veritably cease to exist, and with it the concept of foreigner.

no it wouldn't. once again, i can freely go between washington and idaho, and we can still tell which of them i am a citizen of. the process of gaining citizenship has fuck all to do with the crossing of borders.

The guy who posted above you arguing vehemently for the illegals is called Free Soviets. I just find that rather amusing.

why so?

my, you are confused, aren't you? the issue here is one of a legally established policy of open borders. do try to keep up.

And that's exactly where your argument fails. No such sovereign nation, in the modern sense of the term, exists; indeed, it cannot. Nor has it ever. The political constructs today are founded upon the basic ability to clearly define between citizen and non-citizen. Open borders--legally established--effectively destroy this concept, because it would be virtually impossible to differentiate between the two.



show me how. demonstrate, motherfucker.
Ooh, big words. Awfully provocative for an anonymous user on an internet forum...
But since you need to be spoonfed: instead of running away, which you are, from difficult arguments, address them. If you can't, which appears to be the case, you lose. It's a tough game.

idaho and washington are currently distinct political entities (though part of a federal system) with political authority within their borders and an official policy of open borders between them. now we imagine that they become independent from the federal union but retain the same exact border policy they had before. lay out your argument that starts from this premise and concludes with the statement "therefore idaho and washington cannot be sovereign political entities." it is incumbent on you to demonstrate why the analogy fundamentally does not work. merely point out that it is an analogy doesn't work.

so, what do you got?

Here we go:

Washington and Idaho separate from the United States. They are now independent nations. They have a legal policy of open borders.

That's your premise. Here's the jab:
Washingtonians travel across the border to Idaho. No checks. They establish for themselves homes, build a community. They are within Idaho's borders--but are they Idahoan? In this case, they are presumably still Washingtonian.

Here's the knockout:
Washington has no record of its "citizens" leaving. Idaho has no record of them entering. They are just there--they established a community in a different sovereign nation. When the populations of both nations begin to engage in this sort of migration, who actually belongs where, if no border control as such has been established to identify, indeed, to differentiate between an Idahoan and a Washingtonian? They are necessarily indistinguishable. Thus, their identity becomes muddled--Idahoan or Washingtonian? That is, ultimately, the question. Without a definite identity, one cannot claim to be a legitimate citizen of a nation that defines itself by a political boundary (border), particularly when one resides outside of that border. Thus, the sovereignty of each nation is effectively destroyed as national identity is lost and borders lose their meaning. This is the clincher. This is why your analogy fails: within the United States, Washington and Idaho are states. They need not have border controls as they are merely transparent demarcations within a sovereign nation. To differentiate between sovereign nations, you must have identifiable borders and a means to control the movement of population in and out; otherwise, you lose identity, and with that, the premise of sovereignty.

Washington and Idaho separate from the United States. They are now independent nations. They have a legal policy of open borders.

That's your premise. Here's the jab:
Washingtonians travel across the border to Idaho. No checks. They establish for themselves homes, build a community. They are within Idaho's borders--but are they Idahoan? In this case, they are presumably still Washingtonian.

Here's the knockout:
Washington has no record of its "citizens" leaving. Idaho has no record of them entering. They are just there--they established a community in a different sovereign nation. When the populations of both nations begin to engage in this sort of migration, who actually belongs where, if no border control as such has been established to identify, indeed, to differentiate between an Idahoan and a Washingtonian? They are necessarily indistinguishable. Thus, their identity becomes muddled--Idahoan or Washingtonian? That is, ultimately, the question. Without a definite identity, one cannot claim to be a legitimate citizen of a nation that defines itself by a political boundary (border), particularly when one resides outside of that border. Thus, the sovereignty of each nation is effectively destroyed as national identity is lost and borders lose their meaning. This is the clincher. This is why your analogy fails: within the United States, Washington and Idaho are states. They need not have border controls as they are merely transparent demarcations within a sovereign nation. To differentiate between sovereign nations, you must have identifiable borders and a means to control the movement of population in and out; otherwise, you lose identity, and with that, the premise of sovereignty.

So you assume that national identity must be static?

Just to poke some holes:

Washington and Idaho do have separate political systems. They have different laws and regulations, different representatives and executives. So state borders are not "merely transparent demarcations within a sovereign nation." They have definitive practical relevance.

Why must we assume that national identity rides on the original nationality of the people. Considering that a state is largely abstract, race or nationality bares little relevance to it. It seems more likely that the rule of different codes of laws and political structures would be a more viable example of sovereignty, and your scenario does nothing to show that the two would not maintain separate laws and politics.

The political constructs today are founded upon the basic ability to clearly define between citizen and non-citizen. Open borders--legally established--effectively destroy this concept, because it would be virtually impossible to differentiate between the two.

yes, because open borders necessitate the destruction of records and, indeed, record keeping as a practice. it's so obvious! sort of like how i can just go vote in any state i like because of the open borders between them. none of them have any requirements like proof of residency or anything. nope, certainly not.

Here we go:

Washington and Idaho separate from the United States. They are now independent nations. They have a legal policy of open borders.

That's your premise. Here's the jab:
Washingtonians travel across the border to Idaho. No checks. They establish for themselves homes, build a community. They are within Idaho's borders--but are they Idahoan? In this case, they are presumably still Washingtonian.

nope. they look like residents of idaho to me, what with all the residing in idaho and such. perhaps they might even have become citizens - it depends on the particular rules governing citizenship in place.

Without a definite identity, one cannot claim to be a legitimate citizen of a nation that defines itself by a political boundary (border), particularly when one resides outside of that border.

sure you can. you either meet the requirements for citizenship or you do not. if you want to become a citizen, then you go fulfill the requirements of citizenship (whatever those may be). if you don't, then you don't. it's not that fucking complicated.

...

do you think i'm explaining this clearly? i cannot see what the problem is, so i don't know how to better get my meaning across to them. it seems rather trivial to me, actually, but apparently not everyone finds it to be.

So you assume that national identity must be static?

Just to poke some holes:

Washington and Idaho do have separate political systems. They have different laws and regulations, different representatives and executives. So state borders are not "merely transparent demarcations within a sovereign nation." They have definitive practical relevance.

Why must we assume that national identity rides on the original nationality of the people. Considering that a state is largely abstract, race or nationality bares little relevance to it. It seems more likely that the rule of different codes of laws and political structures would be a more viable example of sovereignty, and your scenario does nothing to show that the two would not maintain separate laws and politics.

When you travel to another state, you are still American, no matter what state you travel to. When you travel to another country, you are an American, unless of course you become a citizen (which requires assuming legal national identity of host nation) of that nation. Then, you are a (nation)-an. Rule of law governs affairs within that political entity, and determine who is or is not a citizen. Nationality determines what nation you belong to. Nationality is the key to sovereignty. Without adherence to a specific nation, such a nation cannot and does not exist, nor can it survive. Even with laws and regulations, such a fluid population would be a practical impossibility to monitor and, eventually, the state would collapse. The two US states in question each have their own laws and regulations, separate structures, yes, all true. But again, the overriding principle is that a citizen of each is still an American--the nationality--and this is carries over to all foreign nations. When you go to a different nation, you are an viewed not as a Texan or a Virginian or a South Dakotan, but an American. And this concept, this premise of nationality, is the ultimate, underlying principle of national sovereignty.

*Edit: this of course assumes you are, indeed, American. Apply appropriate nationality as applicable.

do you think i'm explaining this clearly? i cannot see what the problem is, so i don't know how to better get my meaning across to them. it seems rather trivial to me, actually, but apparently not everyone finds it to be.

I don't know why he doesn't grasp that it is a worthwhile analogy, I haven't actually been paying much attention.

When you travel to another state, you are still American, no matter what state you travel to. When you travel to another country, you are an American, unless of course you become a citizen (which requires assuming legal national identity of host nation) of that nation. Then, you are a (nation)-an. Rule of law governs affairs within that political entity, and determine who is or is not a citizen. Nationality determines what nation you belong to. Nationality is the key to sovereignty. Without adherence to a specific nation, such a nation cannot and does not exist, nor can it survive. Even with laws and regulations, such a fluid population would be a practical impossibility to monitor and, eventually, the state would collapse. The two US states in question each have their own laws and regulations, separate structures, yes, all true. But again, the overriding principle is that a citizen of each is still an American--the nationality--and this is carries over to all foreign nations. When you go to a different nation, you are an viewed not as a Texan or a Virginian or a South Dakotan, but an American. And this concept, this premise of nationality, is the ultimate, underlying principle of national sovereignty.


I can prove that national sovereignty has nothing to do with the nationality of its occupants.

What if one nation, lets say the US, confronts another nation, lets say Cuba, and the US as a result places a massive naval blockade around the Cuba. Cuba is thereby completely isolated, with no trade coming in, and no trade going out, yet there is no occupation (beyond the unwitting tourist) of foreigners.

Would you say that Cuba has maintained its national sovereignty?

What if a nation, say Canada, had an extremely friendly relationship with a neighboring country, say the US, and had a largely undefended and open border, where both Canadians and Americans could pass through largely unhassled. Yet Americans who entered into Canada were subject to Canadian laws and law enforcement, and Canadians were likewise subject to American laws.

Would you say that both the US and Canada had lost their national sovereignty.

Both of these were situations in history that denies your interpretation on national sovereignty.