# Forget Immigration Hell; Screw the House, and Screw the Senate, Too! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 8, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-immigration-hell-screw-the-house-and-screw-the-senate-too/351803 "2006-04-08T01:16:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-immigration-hell-screw-the-house-and-screw-the-senate-too/351803/61 "2006-04-12T02:46:12Z")
Well, I have to pack to leave town early tomorrow morning, for a few days to see family, so this may not be as thorough as I would like. And sheesh, you are asking me to singlehandedly resolve the economic imbalances of North America, not to mention chunks of the rest of the world, in a single post? Because it is all about economics, and as I said, the U.S. immigration issue will not be resolved until Mexico (and to a lesser extent, Guatemala, El Salvador, and a few other places) gets its economic act together. So, at risk of delving into GD territory, here goes… > [@magellan01](#): > > I disagree. You are arguing with a people’s basic right to band together as they see fit in order to create a better society. No, as you can tell from this and other current threads, there is a wide spectrum of opinion in the U.S. about how much and what kind of immigration we should allow. So which people should we let decide who gets to band together in this amazing new society, and which aren’t worthy and get kicked out or excluded in the first place? > [@](#): > > Some groups will have better ideas than others, and they will enjoy better lives. How do you know what ideas all these people have, either the ones here lawfully or the ones here unlawfully? Maybe there are some genius ideas south of the border that just have had no opportunity to be expressed. Just think of how much human potential is wasted on this planet every day through lack of education, lack of access to the marketplace of ideas, or even premature death through malnutrition or lack of medical care. > [@](#): > > The others have the opportunity to change what does not work and adopt some of the ideas they see have worked well elsewhere. How much opportunity to effect lasting social or economic change do you think your average illiterate Guatemalan highlander has? ([Rigoberta Menchu](http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1992/tum-bio.html) excepted, but then she eventually got the opportunity to get an education and have her voice heard.) > [@](#): > > Today these groups are called nations, and the rule sets agreed upon are in effect within an area defined by a country’s border. Nothing is stopping a group from outside a successful nation from adopting the ideas that have worked better. Except the vested interests of those already in power, depending on how corrupt they are (which is often a fair amount). Or lack of resources. Or ongoing conflicts, or a zillion other political, economic, and social barriers to improvement. > [@](#): > > They can even ask the more successful nation for help in duplicating that success. See above - those who are running the show frequently have no incentive to let anything change. And bigger guns. > [@](#): > > The successful nations create their own destiny, and in order to do so, have controls in place. They may choose to invite or accept like-minded individuals as they see fit. Of course, but a) sometimes circumstances change and controls need to be adjusted accordingly; and b) various factions may have their own ideas about what the controls should be and how they should be enforced, or we wouldn’t be having this debate to begin with. > [@](#): > > They shouldn’t, for instance, encourage or allow immigration of individuals that would have a negative aspect on their society. Who gets to decide which immigrants would have a negative effect on society? My opinions, for example, may be quite different from yours. > [@](#): > > As far as those who they believe would benefit their society, they should be able to set the rate of immigration to a point where their society can absorb the new individuals without shocking or upsetting the system. These are necessary components of self-determination, a group’s (nation’s) ability to create its own future. At risk of repeating myself, see above. > [@](#): > > Is it fair that Individual X is born into a successful society and Individual Y is born into a failed one? No. Well, at least we agree on _something._ > [@](#): > > Just as it is unfair that people born into the successful society will be born into different economic strata, be born to parents of varying parenting ability, or be born with different physical and mental capacities. The difference with circumstances of birth is that, in a just and mobile society, people born in adverse circumstances have opportunities to change their situations. That sure ain’t the case everywhere. > [@](#): > > All these unfair occurrences have been part of the human experience from time immemorial. The good news is that people can band together and change their destinies. Moviing into a successful group is one way. Adopting their practices, even improving upon, them is another. Assuming they are given the opportunity and the resources to improve themselves - considering the proportion of this planet that barely has enough to eat, I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation for everyone. > [@](#): > > While immigration may have great benefits to the two groups involved, it is not a viable world solution. There is a limit—some limit—on the number of people a particular society can absorb without risking losing some of the attributes responsible for its success. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have all the answers, but I’d like to thin I have a few of them. Let’s face it, the U.S. can do a bigger share than it has - it’s effectively already absorbed millions of people here illegally. Maybe not always as well, or as thoroughly, as everyone would like, but here they are. And I would argue that they would be much better absorbed if they didn’t have to live a semi-underground existence; the problem is self-perpetuating when you have, for example, kids who have been here since early childhood who won’t be able to further their education, no matter how talented they are, because of choices their parents made for them when they were too young to have a say in the matter. > [@](#): > > I should add that the more successful a society is, the more compassionate it can be to both those within and those without. The U.S., a successful society, gives billions of dollars in aid to the poorer parts of the world. While the amount given by the U.S. isn’t the largest percent, we do give more actual dollars than anyone else. Should we give more? I would argue that perhaps more important than giving more is giving _differently._ I am a huge proponent of the “teach a man to fish” philosophy, i.e. teach people how they can learn to help themselves. And for that matter, not behaving in a way that is so anticompetitive that we knock everyone else out of the running. It’s a tough balance, but I thinkwe can always improve. And now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go pack. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2006, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-immigration-hell-screw-the-house-and-screw-the-senate-too/351803/62 "2006-04-12T06:23:27Z")
First, thanks for the response. This will be wating for you when you get back home. > [@Eva Luna](#): > > How do you know what ideas all these people have, either the ones here lawfully or the ones here unlawfully? Maybe there are some genius ideas south of the border that just have had no opportunity to be expressed. Just think of how much human potential is wasted on this planet every day through lack of education, lack of access to the marketplace of ideas, or even premature death through malnutrition or lack of medical care. But this is completely unknowable. And because you can’t know the positiom defaults to “let everyone in”. And that’s just impractical, to say the least. > [@Eva Luna](#): > > How much opportunity to effect lasting social or economic change do you think your average illiterate Guatemalan highlander has? ([Rigoberta Menchu](http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1992/tum-bio.html) excepted, but then she eventually got the opportunity to get an education and have her voice heard.) People have been a bad circumstances before. I’d say it’s the story of sociatel development. People rise up, great things happen. Again your position defaults to “let everyone in”. And that’s just not real position. Or do you think it is? > [@Eva Luna](#): > > Except the vested interests of those already in power, depending on how corrupt they are (which is often a fair amount). Or lack of resources. Or ongoing conflicts, or a zillion other political, economic, and social barriers to improvement. As you said, see above. > [@Eva Luna](#): > > See above - those who are running the show frequently have no incentive to let anything change. And bigger guns. So what is your solution? Everything you say defaults to “let everyone in”. > [@Eva Luna](#): > > Of course, but a) sometimes circumstances change and controls need to be adjusted accordingly; and b) various factions may have their own ideas about what the controls should be and how they should be enforced, or we wouldn’t be having this debate to begin with. Yes. But, please, tell me, what controls would YOU place on immigration? What would your policy be. And as welcoming as it might be, what would YOU do when someone breaks the rules? There are thousands/million of people waiting respectufully and anxiously for a slot to open up as per your policy. Someone sneaks in. What do you do? > [@Eva Luna](#): > > Who gets to decide which immigrants would have a negative effect on society? My opinions, for example, may be quite different from yours. Can we agree that people with infectious diseases should not be let in? How about rapists? Again, is there anyone you’d be willing to keep out? Anyone at all? If so, what do you do if they sneak in? > [@Eva Luna](#): > > The difference with circumstances of birth is that, in a just and mobile society, people born in adverse circumstances have opportunities to change their situations. That sure ain’t the case everywhere. People always have an opportunity to change their situation. That is the message we should be telling everyone. Take the steps necessary to make your life better. > [@Eva Luna](#): > > Assuming they are given the opportunity and the resources to improve themselves - considering the proportion of this planet that barely has enough to eat, I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation for everyone. So, again, what is your proposal. It defaults, to “let everyone in”. > [@Eva Luna](#): > > Let’s face it, the U.S. can do a bigger share than it has - it’s effectively already absorbed millions of people here illegally. Maybe not always as well, or as thoroughly, as everyone would like, but here they are. And I would argue that they would be much better absorbed if they didn’t have to live a semi-underground existence; the problem is self-perpetuating when you have, for example, kids who have been here since early childhood who won’t be able to further their education, no matter how talented they are, because of choices their parents made for them when they were too young to have a say in the matter. You’re simply evading any of the hard questions. Let’s say the U.S., under President **Eva Luna** , changes their immigration policy to allow in 100 million immigrants per year. But there are 500 million people who want to come in. Yo no doubt have some policy in place (or are you advocatiing the abolishment of our borders? Are you?), right? So what do you do when a 1 or 100 or 1,000 people sneak in? What do you do? > [@Eva Luna](#): > > I would argue that perhaps more important than giving more is giving _differently._ I am a huge proponent of the “teach a man to fish” philosophy, i.e. teach people how they can learn to help themselves. And for that matter, not behaving in a way that is so anticompetitive that we knock everyone else out of the running. It’s a tough balance, but I thinkwe can always improve. Sure, we can improve. But you still need an immigration policy. And a set of laws that give it form. and you need to enforce those laws or the whole thiing is meaningless. You do believe in the rule of law, don’t you? And that will apply to immigration as well as other aspects of the US of Eva? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/forget-immigration-hell-screw-the-house-and-screw-the-senate-too/351803.md?page=3)