[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
I keep asking why it should be illegal and you say because it’s against the law. I keep asking why it’s against the law and you say because it’s illegal. Those aren’t answers; they’re just circular reasoning.
I’m saying we should repeal the laws that make it illegal for Mexicans (or citizens of other countries) to immigrate to America. I’m not saying we should have completely open borders but I favor the idea that we should generally allow people from other countries who want to immigrate here to become Americans to do so. I base this on our history; we’ve had a much higher percentage of immigrant population in the past and our country prospered as a result of it. I figure a lot of our success as a nation was build on our ability to attract ambitious people from other countries.
If you don’t like immigration and think it should be illegal, explain your reasons for this.
[/QUOTE]
Okay. So you are NOT advocating completely open borders. Good, as we can start on some common ground. I’d ask you, though, why you do not advocate open borders.
For me, a country’s immigration policy is one that they’ve determined best serves them. If a country is jam packed full of people they are completely within their rights to curtail and discourage—or stop—immigration as they see fit. Conversely, if a country is trying to grow and needs people, as was clearly the case in the early days of the U.S. (or Australia), they are within their rights to make relax immigration rules or to even eliminate them, although that will only be temporary from a practical sense.
A country, particularly a democratic one, is a group of people that have formed a society. Laws are part of that society. What those laws are up to the discretion of the citizenry. If—for whatever reason—they want very lax or very stringent immigration laws, or any laws for that matter, they are free to craft those laws in a way that they feel best serves them.
The people of the U.S. have crafted such laws. And like all laws, they need to be obeyed. Now, one can not agree with the laws and want to change them. And they are free to work to do so. But that is a job for the citizens. Foreigners are free to petition the U.S. government, as well, but their voice should not take precedence of that of the citizenry.
Now that U.S. has been inconsistent in their immigration desires. And the one hand there are laws on the books. On the other hand these laws have been regularly ignored by the very governing bodies who have passed them, albeit some time ago. Both parties are guilty in this. To use a broad brush, those of a republican bent became infatuated, and then addicted, to cheap labor—labor that can be gotten for less than the market would normally offer them. Democrats have bee all to eager to turn a blind eye to millions of criminals (people breaking our immigration laws) because they see every new immigrant as a potential vote.
I think you might agree, as you don’t advocate open borders, that a country needs to serve its citizens first. So if people are coming in a taking jobs, that should only happen if there is no one here to do those jobs. You often here, 'but they’re doing jobs that no one else will do". This is simply a lie. A truer statement would be that “they’re doing jobs that no one else will FOR THOSE WAGES”. A few decades ago NYC had a problem with waste disposal. There weren’t enough garbage men. No one wanted the job. But then the dramatically raised the wages for garbage men and there were waiting lists to get those jobs. And it still exists (I’m pretty sure).
So, these jobs that illegals take are jobs that most of which could and would be done by Americans. For those jobs that we still would need to fill, non-Americans will, in fact, be needed. This can be done in to ways: a more open immigration policy and a guest worker program. And they shouldn’t be confused or conflated. If we simply have need of workers, that can and should be addressed by a simple, efficient guest worker program. At the same time we can and should see if our immigration laws are serving us well. We may indeed benefit from allowing more immigration. We may not.
I personally think that in the long term that we would benefit from greater immigration. But in the short term I would curtail it dramatically—until the illegal problem we have now gets fixed. So, I favor a quick passage of a guest worker program, much like what I understand canada has, where workers can come in for (I think) eight months at a time. They are completely legal, pay taxes, etc., and can travel back and forth to their home countries at whim.
Either way, the process needs to be simpler and faster for everyone. And that brings up amnesty, in all it’s forms. I truly find this despicable. We have two groups of people, both of whom want to emigrate to the U.S.. One group respects our laws and waits and waits in order to come here. The other sneaks into the country with the full knowledge that they are breaking our laws. I don’t see how one can morally justify rewarding those who sneak in (or overstay their visas). It is a clear slap in the face to the people who have shown a higher respect for our laws.
YIKES! I’ll get off my soapbox and leave it there in hopes that I answered your question. If not, feel free to ask for clarification on any point.