I’d say globalization has already let this horse out of the barn. Why would the “overclass” want all their low wage workers to come here to America? It’s easier to hire them to work for even less money back in their native countries.
So far I haven’t used the racist word. Some people who support criminalizing immigration are racists. Some are xenophobic. Some are protectionists. Some are misguided in other ways.
Not everyone who disagrees with me is morally wrong. Some are merely incorrect.
It’s racist to treat people equally regardless of where they are born? It’s racist to support free trade (and by extension free migration)? I think it’s both morally and economically right to allow people to move to where best suits them, regardless of where they were born or currently reside.
You’re basically saying “people who weren’t born in the US don’t deserve to improve their circumstances”. But I’m the one who’s racist?
Absolutely. The United States is markedly worse off in their world, even if the lives of the immigrants count for nothing.
I fully agree, but the fact that second-generation immigrants do outperform the children of natives tips the scale even further. A continuous influx of highly motivated, risk-taking, hard-working immigrants is a tonic against stultification and stagnation.
Well the fact is we are now arranged by countries. We can’t make the rules in Mexico, which has long been economically dominated by its one percent, and to hell with the rest, because, you know, it’s macho for the strong to steal from the weak.
I 'm all for a one world government of the sort conservatives fear and hate, but we don’t have one. So if we can’t make the rules for Mexico, we are under no obligation to accept citizens of Mexico within our borders just because Mexico’s leaders are a pile of crap.
The state of Mexico’s citizens under its long-term leadership by a plutocracy, is one of the best arguments for reduciing wealth inequality in the US. By the way.
How did you get that from my post? I asserted that had immigration been restricted more than it actually was, the U.S. would be worse off.
Controlling levels of immigration is exactly what the U.S. has done, under various schemes and quotas, over the years. Had those restrictions been tighter, the U.S. would be worse off. It doesn’t follow that had there been no restrictions, the U.S. would be better off (though that could be the case, and merits thought).
Also note that Mexico treats illegal immigrants to its shores quite harshly. There’s no talk at all in Mexico of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants from Honduras or Haiti. Nor should there be.
“May”, yes, but how are today’s immigrants any different from the Irish, the Italians, the Germans, or the Asians that have come in waves before and largely made this country better for it? The argument that immigrants are replacing “native” cheap labor seems as faulty as the argument that automation innovation reduces jobs.
Like I pointed out on the OP, it is different because it is not in any way based on the notion of immigrants threatening to overwhelm our language/culture/gene-pool, or being crime-prone or welfare-seeking, or carrying leprosy or whatever.
Generally, much much more strict than ours. It has long been a source of major aggravation to me that the Mexican government is very strict about limiting immigration to Mexico, while at the same time demanding that the United States accept more or less unlimited immigration from Mexico.
