NationStates Jolt Archive


Immigration restrictions... why?

Gravlen
22-12-2007, 00:50
Yay, it's yet another thread on immigration. :D

It seems to be in the wind these days. It's a hot topic in the US what with the election, and it's all the rage in some European countries too.

In the US, recent presidential candidate drop-out Tom Tancredo has said that ""Illegal immigration has a negative effect on the country's economic security", while in Europe Mr Laitinen of the EU's border watchdog-organization Frontex said European countries lose a very effective instrument to fight illegal immigration with the enlargement of the Schengen area, but that it had been "a deliberate choice of the European Union to focus more on the free movement of persons than on security aspects". He's not alone in fearing more crime and less security due to the Schengen expansion. But this is just to illustrate two different views on two continents. I could also mention how Canada is seeking more workers and go on about other countries and situations, but we see that the immigration issue is a big one.

Now, I see a lot of people arguing for stricter immigration control and for stricter measures against illegal / irregular immigration. My question is:

Why should we have restrictions on immigration? Why should we not have open borders and free movement?

This thread was born out of me getting tired of people arguing for stronger immigration control and more restrictions without saying why they hold that position. Like the quote above, where Mr. Tancredo says that illegal immigration has a negative effect on the country's economic security - he has not (to my knowledge) explained why he believes that the harm that would befall society outweigh the benefits of making all immigration legal.

I have some thoughts on the subject, but I'd like to hear from you guys. And I know some of you are for open borders - but can you present the best argument you can see for restriction immigration? You're welcome to shoot it down and point out the flaws in the argument too.
Tornar
22-12-2007, 01:04
The restrictions imposed are, I think, wrong. Freedom of movement and civil rights are some of the thing I always look at, and I am left wing with almost everything.

So, getting to the point...
The restrictions are not in any way, shape or form, good for the US. What they need is more workers to bolster the economy, which happens to be faltering at the moment. The workers who come from Mexico or wherever, will also benefit from this. The people against immigration say that they need to protect the jobs of US citizens, but if they protect them, the workers will have false confidence that their jobs are safe, and that will result in a drop in efficiency. Immigrant workers on average work harder then their US counterparts, and they complain less because they want to keep their jobs. And if those people who immigrated didn't immigrate, their quality of life would be much worse. What more can I say?
Dawn Fin
22-12-2007, 01:06
Well for one, we are in a post 9/11 world, so few countries want terrorists to be able to just amble across the border with bombs and what not.

Also, illegal immigrants make unemployment for citizens as illegals can be paid for less than minimum wage (does not matter if your breaking the law by doing that, you breaking the law by hiring illegals, so, why not break the law cheaply. Your workers won’t report it b/c they don't want to get deported.) and as unemployment increases, people have less money to spend, therefore spend less money, therefore it hurts a nations economy.

Also, illegal immigrants tend to take up a lot of space (no matter how many you pack in a van) and they can take up housing from citizens sometimes.

Finally, we also see that they immigrate not just their bodies, but their mentalities as well. (ie: aggression, bigotry, etc.) This is vividly displayed between Mexicans and Blacks in the USA.
Sirmomo1
22-12-2007, 01:17
Well for one, we are in a post 9/11 world, so few countries want terrorists to be able to just amble across the border with bombs and what not.

Also, illegal immigrants make unemployment for citizens as illegals can be paid for less than minimum wage (does not matter if your breaking the law by doing that, you breaking the law by hiring illegals, so, why not break the law cheaply. Your workers won’t report it b/c they don't want to get deported.) and as unemployment increases, people have less money to spend, therefore spend less money, therefore it hurts a nations economy.

Also, illegal immigrants tend to take up a lot of space (no matter how many you pack in a van) and they can take up housing from citizens sometimes.

Finally, we also see that they immigrate not just their bodies, but their mentalities as well. (ie: aggression, bigotry, etc.) This is vividly displayed between Mexicans and Blacks in the USA.

I'm not sure I can quite picture somebody who is so stupid as to bring up the problems with having illegal immigrants in a debate about legalising all immigration. Not spotting the irony of the bigotry remark is quite spectacular as well. "Flame" or whatever, I don't care. I don't see how rational debate is going to work with someone like this.
Gravlen
22-12-2007, 01:17
Well for one, we are in a post 9/11 world, so few countries want terrorists to be able to just amble across the border with bombs and what not.
Cannot this be dealt with by law enforcement and checkpoints for the purpose of security?


Also, illegal immigrants make unemployment for citizens as illegals can be paid for less than minimum wage (does not matter if your breaking the law by doing that, you breaking the law by hiring illegals, so, why not break the law cheaply. Your workers won’t report it b/c they don't want to get deported.) and as unemployment increases, people have less money to spend, therefore spend less money, therefore it hurts a nations economy.
But if they're all legal due to all restrictions on immigration being lifted, this won't be applicable.


Also, illegal immigrants tend to take up a lot of space (no matter how many you pack in a van) and they can take up housing from citizens sometimes.
But if they're all legal due to all restrictions on immigration being lifted, this won't be applicable.


Finally, we also see that they immigrate not just their bodies, but their mentalities as well. (ie: aggression, bigotry, etc.) This is vividly displayed between Mexicans and Blacks in the USA.
Is your argument that we need restrictions to preserve peace, security, culture, or all of the above? (Or something else entirely?)
Neu Leonstein
22-12-2007, 01:19
Well for one, we are in a post 9/11 world, so few countries want terrorists to be able to just amble across the border with bombs and what not.
Madrid, London, Bali, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Russia...all home-grown.

Also, illegal immigrants make unemployment for citizens as illegals can be paid for less than minimum wage (does not matter if your breaking the law by doing that, you breaking the law by hiring illegals, so, why not break the law cheaply. Your workers won’t report it b/c they don't want to get deported.) and as unemployment increases, people have less money to spend, therefore spend less money, therefore it hurts a nations economy.
http://www.mises.org/story/2135

Also, illegal immigrants tend to take up a lot of space (no matter how many you pack in a van) and they can take up housing from citizens sometimes.
Lol.

Finally, we also see that they immigrate not just their bodies, but their mentalities as well. (ie: aggression, bigotry, etc.) This is vividly displayed between Mexicans and Blacks in the USA.
You mean because white people aren't aggressive or bigoted? Or because all Blacks and Mexicans are?

Basically I think that for any restriction on anything there needs to be a good reason. The default is to let people do as they please, and you better know precisely why you want to stop them from doing so.

Short of concerns in extreme cases, like pandemics, I haven't seen a good reason for immigration to be restricted.
Fall of Empire
22-12-2007, 01:23
Darwin finn is absolutely correct. There does need to be some sensible restrictions to immigration.

A) Terrorists can in fact come over the border. This sounds like neo-con propaganda, but there is a very large Mosque in Asuncion in Paraguay responsible for moving Islamists north across the very porous Mexican-American border. With our ports and the Canadian border secured, this is their only real entry point.

B) The US has worked for a very long time to become the free nation described in our constitution. It's only with great pain that we have finally overcome racism and sexism. Immigrants coming from completely different backgrounds don't always share these same beliefs. Hence the racial problems in LA.
Venndee
22-12-2007, 01:37
I do not believe in state-imposed restrictions on movement and immigration. However, I do not feel that this is analogous to free-entry and free movement. Rather, I think that it should be the right of property owners to choose who will be allowed onto their property. People need to have familiarity concerning the actions of others in order to establish trust, and if the world is changing too quickly this will result in alienation among a populace that will cause a weakening in the cordial social bonds between people.

The best thing to do would be to allow people with above-average intellectual skills, character and cultural compatibility to be able to be owner or lessee of property in a community, allow average people in as seasonal workers and only allowed to remain on the basis of continued employment, and completely bar miscreants, criminals, terrorists, etc. from entry into the community. This will allow for the greatest social cohesion and prosperity of a community.
Nova Magna Germania
22-12-2007, 01:40
Why should we have restrictions on immigration? Why should we not have open borders and free movement?


For reasons similar to why there is blood brain barrier in everyone or Earth has an atmosphere.

How old are you btw?
Gravlen
22-12-2007, 01:58
For reasons similar to why there is blood brain barrier in everyone or Earth has an atmosphere.
You lack a point.


How old are you btw?
And that would be relevant how?
Nova Magna Germania
22-12-2007, 01:59
You lack a point.


Or you missed it.


And that would be relevant how?

If you're like 9, I wont bother.
Gravlen
22-12-2007, 02:03
Or you missed it.
Yeah, no. You lack a point. Have no fear, however, you can always try again.


If you're like 9, I wont bother.
So why are you even on general - let alone in this thread - if you have no interest in debating the issues?
Dawn Fin
22-12-2007, 02:06
Well the only way to truly make a society like you are talking about, there would have to be no citizenship save to one world gov't. And if there was one world gov't, there would be no borders, so, yes, in that scenario no immigration restrictions works very well. But I don't forsee a statless society within our time. As long as the is the mentality of nation states (no pun intended), there will be immigration laws. If we lift the immigration laws than we have taken the first step toward world government. Which, as long as there was still some local government, may be not a bad thing. But as for the way the world is now, the reason's above stand and it will take some seriously new-age leaders to change that.
Fall of Empire
22-12-2007, 02:10
Well the only way to truly make a society like you are talking about, there would have to be no citizenship save to one world gov't. And if there was one world gov't, there would be no borders, so, yes, in that scenario no immigration restrictions works very well. But I don't forsee a statless society within our time. As long as the is the mentality of nation states (no pun intended), there will be immigration laws. If we lift the immigration laws than we have taken the first step toward world government. Which, as long as there was still some local government, may be not a bad thing. But as for the way the world is now, the reason's above stand and it will take some seriously new-age leaders to change that.

Not simply serious leaders. It will take change on the part of the people. To unite globally means very disparate and culturally different people are going to be functioning together in the same government. Take a look at the US now, the amount of flames that pass between Conservatives and Liberals, who speak the same language and have the same culture, only varying minutely on the political issues they support. We're a long way from global unification.
Ashmoria
22-12-2007, 02:13
in the US there are several reasons not to allow unlimited immigration.

the country is filling up. we would like to leave SOME room for nature eh? if we allow another .... 300milllion.. to enter the country, we would have a problem

too many people entering at one time makes for all sorts of problems. there needs to be housing, jobs, schools etc for newcomers. throwing the doors open to limitless numbers of people to enter the US and go wherever they choose would be a severe strain.

back in the day when we took in as many people as showed up, the government has little to do with the individual. there wasnt any income tax, no social security, no welfare. you lived and died on your own. massive numbers of people came to the new world, helped to build it and died as a result. it was none of the government's business.

today we DO have income tax, welfare, social security, govt funded health care, govt funded education, etc. a poor uneducated person coming to the US has years of support necessary before they can be expected to pull their weight. its a win/win in the end but if too many come all at once, its too much of a burden.
Dawn Fin
22-12-2007, 02:18
Not simply serious leaders. It will take change on the part of the people. To unite globally means very disparate and culturally different people are going to be functioning together in the same government. Take a look at the US now, the amount of flames that pass between Conservatives and Liberals, who speak the same language and have the same culture, only varying minutely on the political issues they support. We're a long way from global unification.

Very true, think about it: If a leader was to come up today an speak like this, he would be considered the biggest liberal ever, if people wanted this and a leader rejected it he would be considered a conservative. And never will every one want the same thing at the same time, so that makes things even harder to unify. But I think it will start with some inklings of this and some leader will get elected and start this somehow, and he/she'll be very devoted to the cause and it will begin things. But probably not even in our childerns' childerns' childerns' lives.
Call to power
22-12-2007, 02:19
of course immigration should be a none issue because maybe if most of the planet wasn't living in poverty we could enjoy the same immigration we have between Canada and say the UK

A) Terrorists can in fact come over the border. This sounds like neo-con propaganda, but there is a very large Mosque in Asuncion in Paraguay responsible for moving Islamists north across the very porous Mexican-American border. With our ports and the Canadian border secured, this is their only real entry point.

1) you cannot secure every inch of your shoreline
2) terrorism is about as scary as the monster under my bed, in other words not at all (though of course the objective of terrorism is such fear much like a poor Halloween costume)

B) The US has worked for a very long time to become the free nation described in our constitution. It's only with great pain that we have finally overcome racism and sexism. Immigrants coming from completely different backgrounds don't always share these same beliefs. Hence the racial problems in LA.

you don't think South America have these same philosophies? tell me do you subscribe to the nation of barbarians as well?

Well the only way to truly make a society like you are talking about, there would have to be no citizenship save to one world gov't.

yes because thats precisely what has happened between France and Germany!
Laerod
22-12-2007, 02:20
yes because thats precisely what has happened between France and Germany!It has? :confused:
DrVenkman
22-12-2007, 02:28
The reason for controlling immigration is a simple one. Better border security and less dirt bags getting into the country. I sure as heck don't want my country to become a haven for criminals (which it has, just check out the gang population in L.A.). Proponents for 'free movement' (chiefly of Mexican workers) seem to be forgetting that the U.S. simply cannot pay for all of the illegal immigrants; we are having enough of a hard time paying for our own outrageous spending!

The mexican workers are indeed hard working and getting screwed by their employers; however legal citizens are getting even screwed harder because they cannot legally compete with someone below minimum wage as mandated by law. So we have an influx of cheap labor with no competition, the shutting down of dozens of hospitals in California because of illegals using the E.R. rooms as doctor clinics, and a influx of crime thanks to the impoverished conditions the disenfranchised workers are living in thanks to their lower standard of living. Thanks but no thanks. Fix Mexico and fix the problem. The U.S. already has enough to deal with. 'Open borders' is not a problem when the economic differences between two countries and their laws are not being openly violated in the millions.
Fall of Empire
22-12-2007, 02:31
of course immigration should be a none issue because maybe if most of the planet wasn't living in poverty we could enjoy the same immigration we have between Canada and say the UK



1) you cannot secure every inch of your shoreline
2) terrorism is about as scary as the monster under my bed, in other words not at all (though of course the objective of terrorism is such fear much like a poor Halloween costume)
Terrorism is not scary to you because there has been no terrorist attack since 9/11. Despite my dislike of the current admistration, I'd have to admit they've done a pretty good job at preventing terrorism. At least in the US.


you don't think South America have these same philosophies? tell me do you subscribe to the nation of barbarians as well?

You DO think South America has the same philosophies as the United States? I don't think they care, because in their native countries, they don't have to deal with race. There first time in the US is the first time they really have to deal with race, something that they're unfamiliar in dealing with. And the first reaction of most people to something they're unfamiliar with is to destroy it. Look up the MECHA, or the targeting of black neighborhoods by latinos.
Call to power
22-12-2007, 02:32
the country is filling up. we would like to leave SOME room for nature eh? if we allow another .... 300milllion.. to enter the country, we would have a problem

China doesn't have this problem for Havanas sake, in case you haven't noticed apartments are rather good with space and seeing as how thats where the poor mostly end up all is good

too many people entering at one time makes for all sorts of problems. there needs to be housing, jobs, schools etc for newcomers. throwing the doors open to limitless numbers of people to enter the US and go wherever they choose would be a severe strain.

and the newcomers will supply you with plenty of tax paying cash because legal citizens do that

then you use the money to buy schools!

back in the day when we took in as many people as showed up, the government has little to do with the individual. there wasnt any income tax, no social security, no welfare. you lived and died on your own. massive numbers of people came to the new world, helped to build it and died as a result. it was none of the government's business.

no the government at the time just turned a blind eye to it all hence the slaves building the railways

same thing happens now so no worries there

a poor uneducated person coming to the US has years of support necessary before they can be expected to pull their weight. its a win/win in the end but if too many come all at once, its too much of a burden.

illegal immigrants seem to get working straight away and even have enough to send home
Gravlen
22-12-2007, 02:37
Well the only way to truly make a society like you are talking about, there would have to be no citizenship save to one world gov't. And if there was one world gov't, there would be no borders, so, yes, in that scenario no immigration restrictions works very well. But I don't forsee a statless society within our time. As long as the is the mentality of nation states (no pun intended), there will be immigration laws. If we lift the immigration laws than we have taken the first step toward world government. Which, as long as there was still some local government, may be not a bad thing. But as for the way the world is now, the reason's above stand and it will take some seriously new-age leaders to change that.

This argument I like better. That a nation state has a legitimate interest in having a measure of control over who its inhabitants are, and protecting itself, keeping itself alive in a way.

I'm not convinced by it though, as the states interest of self-preservation trumping the interests of the individual alone would not, in my mind, be an adequate reason. But I could see it as a handy support-reason :p

in the US there are several reasons not to allow unlimited immigration.

the country is filling up. we would like to leave SOME room for nature eh? if we allow another .... 300milllion.. to enter the country, we would have a problem
Would 300 million come though? I mean, about one million a year enter legally now, and another estimated half million cross illegally. And there are an estimated 10 million ("could be as high as 10 million. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7131464.stm)") illegal immigrants in the country already. 300 million is a long way of, so it's not a realistic image today, is it? So where should the line be drawn? 10 million? 100 million? There's a lot of room left, if you go outside of the big cities...


too many people entering at one time makes for all sorts of problems. there needs to be housing, jobs, schools etc for newcomers. throwing the doors open to limitless numbers of people to enter the US and go wherever they choose would be a severe strain.

back in the day when we took in as many people as showed up, the government has little to do with the individual. there wasnt any income tax, no social security, no welfare. you lived and died on your own. massive numbers of people came to the new world, helped to build it and died as a result. it was none of the government's business.

today we DO have income tax, welfare, social security, govt funded health care, govt funded education, etc. a poor uneducated person coming to the US has years of support necessary before they can be expected to pull their weight. its a win/win in the end but if too many come all at once, its too much of a burden.
So you're arguing that immigration restrictions should be in place to make sure the system isn't swamped? Hmmm...

I think that's not a bad argument, though I feel it has some uncertainties. For example, I'm not sure I see that such a huge exodus would occur. People generally like their homelands, and many (if not most) do not emigrate unless there's some for of necessity. On the other hand, there could still be enough to strain the system, as you say.

And I feel that the protection of established welfare and social systems, and the prevention of abuse of those systems, are a legitimate concern. Especially for countries with well-established systems. (Like the Scandinavian countries)
Call to power
22-12-2007, 02:41
It has? :confused:

exactly this hasn't happened thus the argument I was quoting is untrue

Terrorism is not scary to you because there has been no terrorist attack since 9/11. Despite my dislike of the current admistration, I'd have to admit they've done a pretty good job at preventing terrorism. At least in the US.

...I'm English

and no they haven't because if you remember the 80's and 90's had few attacks from religious extremists, hell maybe treating Muslims like some sort of infectious disease has made things worse no?

You DO think South America has the same philosophies as the United States? I don't think they care, because in their native countries, they don't have to deal with race.

...wow I mean I can understand if you don't know about across the Atlantic but I would of thought you would of twigged that your neighbors down South have racial diversity

you do know the Spanish and Portuguese empire used slavery right?

There first time in the US is the first time they really have to deal with race, something that they're unfamiliar in dealing with. And the first reaction of most people to something they're unfamiliar with is to destroy it. Look up the MECHA, or the targeting of black neighborhoods by latinos.

thats what happens when people live in poverty, unless of course the Arian brotherhood only popped up recently
Zayun2
22-12-2007, 02:53
Well for one, we are in a post 9/11 world, so few countries want terrorists to be able to just amble across the border with bombs and what not.

Also, illegal immigrants make unemployment for citizens as illegals can be paid for less than minimum wage (does not matter if your breaking the law by doing that, you breaking the law by hiring illegals, so, why not break the law cheaply. Your workers won’t report it b/c they don't want to get deported.) and as unemployment increases, people have less money to spend, therefore spend less money, therefore it hurts a nations economy.

Also, illegal immigrants tend to take up a lot of space (no matter how many you pack in a van) and they can take up housing from citizens sometimes.

Finally, we also see that they immigrate not just their bodies, but their mentalities as well. (ie: aggression, bigotry, etc.) This is vividly displayed between Mexicans and Blacks in the USA.

Perhaps the terrorism is there because of an oppressive system that exploits much of the worlds population.

This is a discussion on legal immigration.

Not talking about illegal immigration, and a rather tasteless joke.

So only non-whites are aggressive and bigoted? If you are white, then you just proved your statement false.


Darwin finn is absolutely correct. There does need to be some sensible restrictions to immigration.

A) Terrorists can in fact come over the border. This sounds like neo-con propaganda, but there is a very large Mosque in Asuncion in Paraguay responsible for moving Islamists north across the very porous Mexican-American border. With our ports and the Canadian border secured, this is their only real entry point.

B) The US has worked for a very long time to become the free nation described in our constitution. It's only with great pain that we have finally overcome racism and sexism. Immigrants coming from completely different backgrounds don't always share these same beliefs. Hence the racial problems in LA.

Islamists moving in from Mexico, where the fuck are you pulling this shit from, besides out of your ass?

You honestly think racism and sexism has been overcome? There's plenty left to overcome, let me tell you.

in the US there are several reasons not to allow unlimited immigration.

the country is filling up. we would like to leave SOME room for nature eh? if we allow another .... 300milllion.. to enter the country, we would have a problem

too many people entering at one time makes for all sorts of problems. there needs to be housing, jobs, schools etc for newcomers. throwing the doors open to limitless numbers of people to enter the US and go wherever they choose would be a severe strain.

back in the day when we took in as many people as showed up, the government has little to do with the individual. there wasnt any income tax, no social security, no welfare. you lived and died on your own. massive numbers of people came to the new world, helped to build it and died as a result. it was none of the government's business.

today we DO have income tax, welfare, social security, govt funded health care, govt funded education, etc. a poor uneducated person coming to the US has years of support necessary before they can be expected to pull their weight. its a win/win in the end but if too many come all at once, its too much of a burden.

Like it, pretty reasonable.

Terrorism is not scary to you because there has been no terrorist attack since 9/11. Despite my dislike of the current admistration, I'd have to admit they've done a pretty good job at preventing terrorism. At least in the US.


You DO think South America has the same philosophies as the United States? I don't think they care, because in their native countries, they don't have to deal with race. There first time in the US is the first time they really have to deal with race, something that they're unfamiliar in dealing with. And the first reaction of most people to something they're unfamiliar with is to destroy it. Look up the MECHA, or the targeting of black neighborhoods by latinos.

Keywords: in the US.

Terrorism worldwide has increased, and the governments current means of stopping it are only contributing to the problem.

Even if anything you say was true, it would not prove anything. Can you really prove that the majority of Mexicans coming in would be gangsters? No, you can't.
Ashmoria
22-12-2007, 02:58
This argument I like better. That a nation state has a legitimate interest in having a measure of control over who its inhabitants are, and protecting itself, keeping itself alive in a way.

I'm not convinced by it though, as the states interest of self-preservation trumping the interests of the individual alone would not, in my mind, be an adequate reason. But I could see it as a handy support-reason :p


Would 300 million come though? I mean, about one million a year enter legally now, and another estimated half million cross illegally. And there are an estimated 10 million ("could be as high as 10 million. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7131464.stm)") illegal immigrants in the country already. 300 million is a long way of, so it's not a realistic image today, is it? So where should the line be drawn? 10 million? 100 million? There's a lot of room left, if you go outside of the big cities...


So you're arguing that immigration restrictions should be in place to make sure the system isn't swamped? Hmmm...

I think that's not a bad argument, though I feel it has some uncertainties. For example, I'm not sure I see that such a huge exodus would occur. People generally like their homelands, and many (if not most) do not emigrate unless there's some for of necessity. On the other hand, there could still be enough to strain the system, as you say.

And I feel that the protection of established welfare and social systems, and the prevention of abuse of those systems, are a legitimate concern. Especially for countries with well-established systems. (Like the Scandinavian countries)

i think that, and the environment, is the ONLY reason to limit immigration.

1.5 million come now because that is what is allowed. i assume that if we removed ALL barriers to immigration tomorrow, we would get a huge influx in the next few years then it would taper off.

but honestly, if you lived in africa or asia and were dirt poor would you not take the chance to move to the US on whatever transport you could afford? surely an entrepreneur could fill up a freighter with human cargo for $200/person and fill every space and make a handsome profit. so you had to suffer in horrid conditions for a week to a month, it would be worth it.

yes thats alot of money for a poor person to scrape up but far more is scraped up now to get people into the US.
New Granada
22-12-2007, 03:03
Lots of reasons, for instance a country might not want an influx of cheap foreign laborers competing for its jobs, might not want to deal with people who don't speak the language, might want to preserve its traditional culture against outside influences, might not want to import poor people to support, &c &c.
Ashmoria
22-12-2007, 03:05
China doesn't have this problem for Havanas sake, in case you haven't noticed apartments are rather good with space and seeing as how thats where the poor mostly end up all is good

china is an environmental disaster. it has far too many people and far too few wild place. we dont want to end up that way.


and the newcomers will supply you with plenty of tax paying cash because legal citizens do that

then you use the money to buy schools!


in the end, as i said, it will be a win/win with new immigrants paying for the needed infrastructure. in the short term, your kid is going to have to attend class in a mobile classroom with 50 other students. or your taxes will have to double to pay for the new infrastructure.


no the government at the time just turned a blind eye to it all hence the slaves building the railways

same thing happens now so no worries there


at that time it was none of the governments business. now it is. lets use hurricane katrina as an example.


illegal immigrants seem to get working straight away and even have enough to send home

yeah but they live without a safety net of any kind.
Tornar
22-12-2007, 03:07
Terrorism is not scary to you because there has been no terrorist attack since 9/11. Despite my dislike of the current admistration, I'd have to admit they've done a pretty good job at preventing terrorism. At least in the US.but was 9/11 a terrorist attack? There's lots of conspiracy theory's out there, so if it was an inside job, would that be an arrgument?
Sirmomo1
22-12-2007, 04:28
we have finally overcome racism and sexism.

Sorry, we've done what?
Conserative Morality
22-12-2007, 04:44
The only reason we have such strict immigration laws is because the politians(Or at least most of them) Go "EEEK! Forigners! Even though I am probably a decendant of someone from a foregn country they are a threat to our national security!" And they trick some of the voters into thinking so also. They are a blessing, not a curse. More people working means more jobs created. And if the politians would just STOP the strict anti-immigration laws we would have a much better economy. That and get rid of welfare but thats another post.
Gun Manufacturers
22-12-2007, 05:19
The restrictions imposed are, I think, wrong. Freedom of movement and civil rights are some of the thing I always look at, and I am left wing with almost everything.

So, getting to the point...
The restrictions are not in any way, shape or form, good for the US. What they need is more workers to bolster the economy, which happens to be faltering at the moment. The workers who come from Mexico or wherever, will also benefit from this. The people against immigration say that they need to protect the jobs of US citizens, but if they protect them, the workers will have false confidence that their jobs are safe, and that will result in a drop in efficiency. Immigrant workers on average work harder then their US counterparts, and they complain less because they want to keep their jobs. And if those people who immigrated didn't immigrate, their quality of life would be much worse. What more can I say?

Illegal immigrants complain less because they have nobody to complain to (since they're here illegally, going to the authorities with labor complaints would get them deported). Legal immigrants (at least, the ones I've worked with) complain just as much as those of us that were born here.

We need better border control because illegal immigrants are taken advantage of in a lot of instances. They usually have no workman's comp, in many instances their working conditions are worse, and they usually receive less pay than legal workers. As far as the immigration question goes, better border control + an easier route to legal immigration would be the best option IMO.
Gun Manufacturers
22-12-2007, 05:22
Cannot this be dealt with by law enforcement and checkpoints for the purpose of security?


But if they're all legal due to all restrictions on immigration being lifted, this won't be applicable.


But if they're all legal due to all restrictions on immigration being lifted, this won't be applicable.


Is your argument that we need restrictions to preserve peace, security, culture, or all of the above? (Or something else entirely?)

You can't have law enforcement and checkpoints on the border, while having an open border.
Sel Appa
22-12-2007, 05:25
If you want freedom of movement, support a one world government like me.

Until then, borders will be borders. You can't have it both ways.
Trollgaard
22-12-2007, 07:26
Why against open massive immigration? It would swamp our infrastructure. Illegals are already doing that in the Southwest. Many hospitals have closed because they cannot operate with so many damned illegals.

Also, crime (illegals), cultural differences, and security threats (terrorism).
La Habana Cuba
22-12-2007, 07:37
While As native born Cuban, Cuban American legal immigrant I have mixed views on the subject.
As I support the Cuban Adjustment Act on selfish grounds since it allows my people to stay in the USA and become legal residents and citizens, I have to admit the Cuban Adjustment Act is unfair to illegal immigrants and should be abolished.
Legal immigrants should have all their rights respected.
Legal immigrants are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants thats it.
In all my 54 NS nations legal immigrants are legal immigrants and illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants and we dont allow any illegal immigrants so we dont have any thats it.
Voxio
22-12-2007, 07:53
Helps us keep track of who is in the country and thus better fight criminals. If we have no idea where the murderer or pedophile is, then we can't link them to a crime or prevent further criminal activities.

Though I do encourage a more open legal immigration.
Entropic Creation
22-12-2007, 09:23
Immigration to a developed nation must be controlled simply as a matter of cost.

Unfortunately the US takes the most idiotic method of selecting immigrants which leads the average immigrant to be very poor and uneducated. Poor uneducated people are a substantial drain on the economy.

Eliminate social welfare and sure - open the gates and let anyone who wants to come, come on in! If you cant find a job, youre going to starve to death, but welcome nonetheless. If you want to keep your social welfare, you have to limit who can get access to the social welfare programs or accept a drastic fall in the standard of living.

My preference would be to greatly expand immigration, but do so selectively. Only allow those who are reasonably educated and productive into the nation - so long as they are productive enough to more than balance the drain on public services, they should be allowed in.
Ruby City
22-12-2007, 11:05
I think anyone who is a refugee or has a job contract to show at the border should be allowed in. I don't think requiring jobs before entering would be a problem because if companies want to import workers then they can go and find some workers to import. The reason for suggesting this restriction is that they must get access to the full welfare system from day 1, anything else is unacceptable, then they should also pay tax from day 1 rather then working illegally or not at all. Refugees must get an exception though.

Absolutely free trade is needed before free movement is a good idea. If inhabitants of a poor country can't import their goods to a rich country without restrictions but can immigrate without restrictions then they will be forced to immigrate even if they don't want to just to get inside the import barrier.

The terrorism argument is bullshit, terrorism is a real danger in Iraq but not in the US. If it happens weekly then it's a danger, if it happens once a year then the risk of getting killed by a terrorist is too small to worry about.

BTW, we have a big problem with illegal workers here in Sweden too but almost all of them are Swedish so income tax evasion is not always reserved for immigrants.
Herocracy
22-12-2007, 11:30
Far, far too often do illegal immigrants cross the borders into the States with no intention whatsoever of even attempting to become legal citizens and abide the laws therein, and often times the laws otherwise as a result. Rarely will you see any sensible man or woman run about speaking of how we shouldn't allow immigrants into our country or that immigrants in general are a negative aspect of a 'free' country. It's the illegal immigrants with no intentions to alter the illegality of their situation that have become a major issue. Only when large-scale immigration occurs (which has been occuring for quite some time in certain parts of the U.S.) does it become a problem otherwise. California, for example, has become a state that's hardly American anymore. That's but one example.

To address the question of how immigration can have a negative impact on our economy, well, that should be obvious to anyone who isn't deaf, dumb and blind. When an immigrant comes to the United States, often times they're willing to work under the table for low wages with no taxes, being illegal aliens on foreign soil. This act alone takes many, many jobs from Americans and legal immigrants alike and causes an imbalance and a rift in our economy with large-scale occurances which, again, are becoming increasingly common.

If you want another example, one portaying to legal immigrants rather than illegal aliens, then I'll give you that as well. These people are what we call racial minorities. In the United States, we have many government programs that cater to these minorities and the minorities alone, allowing them 'special treatment' to counterbalance the 'special treatment' that comes with not being a racial minority. Brilliant concept, that. I hope the sarcasm there falls short on no one. At any rate, this means that a lot of times there's a large chunk of legal taxpayers' money going to feeding and housing and catering to these racial minorities, causing more rifts and imbalances and angry citizens. In case you haven't noticed, countless immigrants come to the United States only to get pregnant and give birth to a child on U.S. soil, therefore granting them legal citizenship in various ways that allow them to slip through enough loopholes in the immigration system to cause more of those wonderful imbalances and rifts in the economy and other aspects of our life. These are referred to as 'anchor babies'.

It's not that we don't want people to come to the United States and live here, at least not most of us. We want people to come, and become legal citizens and do their part. If they aren't willing to do that, then they can stay where they are. I don't want them. Do you?
Ariddia
22-12-2007, 11:52
You DO think South America has the same philosophies as the United States? I don't think they care, because in their native countries, they don't have to deal with race.

Since when is there no ethnic diversity in South America? Black, white, métisse, indigenous, a smattering of Asian...


Legal immigrants are legal immigrants, illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants thats it.
In all my 54 NS nations legal immigrants are legal immigrants and illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants and we dont allow any illegal immigrants

That would indeed be the definition of "illegal", m'dear.

so we dont have any thats it.

The real world isn't quite that simple.

Much as I sympathise with the idea of open borders and removing immigration restrictions, I have to agree with Ashmoria. If you take in more immigrants than you can provide welfare to during their early years, you're not doing them a kindness, and you're not doing a kindness to society. For immigration to be successful, you have to have the means to assist the integration of immigrants.
Gravlen
22-12-2007, 13:55
You can't have law enforcement and checkpoints on the border, while having an open border.
Why not? Why couldn't that work?

If you want freedom of movement, support a one world government like me.

Until then, borders will be borders. You can't have it both ways.
*Points to the Schengen area*

Why against open massive immigration? It would swamp our infrastructure. Illegals are already doing that in the Southwest. Many hospitals have closed because they cannot operate with so many damned illegals.

Also, crime (illegals), cultural differences, and security threats (terrorism).
Do you have any links or stories to show these closures?

Or anything to back up the hypothesis that you'd see more crime, or that you really would be swamped by immigrants?

Much as I sympathise with the idea of open borders and removing immigration restrictions, I have to agree with Ashmoria. If you take in more immigrants than you can provide welfare to during their early years, you're not doing them a kindness, and you're not doing a kindness to society. For immigration to be successful, you have to have the means to assist the integration of immigrants.
Indeed.

It can also be a problem over time, if the immigrants seek to enter a country solely due to the welfare benefits (like disability benefits) etc. If they contribute little or nothing, the programs won't be able to handle it in the long run.

Of course, that can perhaps be remedied by stricter regulation on such benefits.
Sirmomo1
22-12-2007, 15:01
Immigration to a developed nation must be controlled simply as a matter of cost.

Unfortunately the US takes the most idiotic method of selecting immigrants which leads the average immigrant to be very poor and uneducated. Poor uneducated people are a substantial drain on the economy.

Eliminate social welfare and sure - open the gates and let anyone who wants to come, come on in! If you cant find a job, youre going to starve to death, but welcome nonetheless. If you want to keep your social welfare, you have to limit who can get access to the social welfare programs or accept a drastic fall in the standard of living.

My preference would be to greatly expand immigration, but do so selectively. Only allow those who are reasonably educated and productive into the nation - so long as they are productive enough to more than balance the drain on public services, they should be allowed in.

I think that's a bit simplistic. Immigrants like me (educated, white collar etc) don't end up as garbage collectors or cleaners or cooks or busboys or all kinds of things that poor and uneducated people do. Worse, we increase the demand for these kinds of things.
Fall of Empire
22-12-2007, 15:14
I think that's a bit simplistic. Immigrants like me (educated, white collar etc) don't end up as garbage collectors or cleaners or cooks or busboys or all kinds of things that poor and uneducated people do. Worse, we increase the demand for these kinds of things.

Oh cool. Where are you from?
Sirmomo1
22-12-2007, 15:15
Oh cool. Where are you from?

England
Snafturi
22-12-2007, 16:00
Yay, it's yet another thread on immigration. :D

It seems to be in the wind these days. It's a hot topic in the US what with the election, and it's all the rage in some European countries too.

In the US, recent presidential candidate drop-out Tom Tancredo has said that ""Illegal immigration has a negative effect on the country's economic security", while in Europe Mr Laitinen of the EU's border watchdog-organization Frontex said European countries lose a very effective instrument to fight illegal immigration with the enlargement of the Schengen area, but that it had been "a deliberate choice of the European Union to focus more on the free movement of persons than on security aspects". He's not alone in fearing more crime and less security due to the Schengen expansion. But this is just to illustrate two different views on two continents. I could also mention how Canada is seeking more workers and go on about other countries and situations, but we see that the immigration issue is a big one.

Now, I see a lot of people arguing for stricter immigration control and for stricter measures against illegal / irregular immigration. My question is:

Why should we have restrictions on immigration? Why should we not have open borders and free movement?

This thread was born out of me getting tired of people arguing for stronger immigration control and more restrictions without saying why they hold that position. Like the quote above, where Mr. Tancredo says that illegal immigration has a negative effect on the country's economic security - he has not (to my knowledge) explained why he believes that the harm that would befall society outweigh the benefits of making all immigration legal.

I have some thoughts on the subject, but I'd like to hear from you guys. And I know some of you are for open borders - but can you present the best argument you can see for restriction immigration? You're welcome to shoot it down and point out the flaws in the argument too.

I mostly worry about the job market and economy. Not just of this country but any country. I mean, if all countries were more or less economically compatible, fantastic.

And no, I'm not jumping off the deep end like some people do with Mexican and Guatemalan immigration. They aren't stealing our jobs like the alarmists would have you believe. Or, not the jobs the people bitching have.

IIRC Canada's immigration policy is you have to be gainfully employed to become a citizen and all things equal a Canadian would get a job over a non-Canadian. That's a sensible policy in my estimation. And I might totally be making that up, but I like the idea regardless.
Neu Leonstein
23-12-2007, 00:13
To address the question of how immigration can have a negative impact on our economy, well, that should be obvious to anyone who isn't deaf, dumb and blind. When an immigrant comes to the United States, often times they're willing to work under the table for low wages with no taxes, being illegal aliens on foreign soil. This act alone takes many, many jobs from Americans and legal immigrants alike and causes an imbalance and a rift in our economy with large-scale occurances which, again, are becoming increasingly common.
It's not causing an imbalance, it's reversing it. The immigration controls work as a trade barrier for labour, and it's most obvious in these unskilled positions. There's a demand for this sort of extremely cheap labour, and there are two ways of getting access to it: go over the border yourself and set up in Mexico, or use immigrants who are coming in from there.

If the trade barrier didn't exist, there'd be no imbalance, since the labour markets in question would be tending towards equilibrium. You can't expect the government to introduce measures that throw everything out of equilibrium and then expect that it will be sustainable. Since none of the motivators of the individual agents (ie immigrants and employers) change, you've just created an obstacle that many people will choose to overcome. That's what creates "illegal" immigrants.

If you get rid of the restrictions now, there'll be an adjustment period (which may be painful for some minority of the country) similar to what you get when any other sort of trade barrier is dropped. And then things will be fine. Oh, and you may want to drop the minimum wage too, because that's just another incentive to forego the official route, as is any form of price control.
Tornar
23-12-2007, 00:16
It's not causing an imbalance, it's reversing it. The immigration controls work as a trade barrier for labour, and it's most obvious in these unskilled positions. There's a demand for this sort of extremely cheap labour, and there are two ways of getting access to it: go over the border yourself and set up in Mexico, or use immigrants who are coming in from there.

If the trade barrier didn't exist, there'd be no imbalance, since the labour markets in question would be tending towards equilibrium. You can't expect the government to introduce measures that throw everything out of equilibrium and then expect that it will be sustainable. Since none of the motivators of the individual agents (ie immigrants and employers) change, you've just created an obstacle that many people will choose to overcome. That's what creates "illegal" immigrants.

If you get rid of the restrictions now, there'll be an adjustment period (which may be painful for some minority of the country) similar to what you get when any other sort of trade barrier is dropped. And then things will be fine. Oh, and you may want to drop the minimum wage too, because that's just another incentive to forego the official route, as is any form of price control.Yay! Good arrugment!
Gun Manufacturers
23-12-2007, 00:32
Why not? Why couldn't that work?

Because if you have checkpoints and law enforcement on the border, the border ISN'T open, because the checkpoints and law enforcement are for excluding certain people.
Yootopia
23-12-2007, 02:52
Because the US has the world's best PR system, and if it opened its borders completely, would be flooded by unskilled migrants from Africa, Asia, South America usw.?
Gravlen
23-12-2007, 14:31
Because if you have checkpoints and law enforcement on the border, the border ISN'T open, because the checkpoints and law enforcement are for excluding certain people.

No, it would still be open. Regardless of your nationality, country of origin, or residential status, you can enter. If you are a criminal or a terrorist (or indeed both) you may be subject to restrictions - but that wouldn't change the fact that the border would be open.