How can The United Nations pass a list of “rights” that includes ones like this that every country in the world violates according to your (rather peculiar) interpretation. Border protection, restricted entry and immigration requirements are part of the very definition of a sovereign nation.
I don’t think that point means what you claim it does.
Milton Friedman once made the argument that illegal immigration in the modern age (eg. from Mexico) was a good thing, essentially because it most closely resembled the immigration to America pre-1914. He argued that illegal immigrants are benefiting themselves (otherwise they wouldn’t immigrate), as well as benefiting the country by contributing by working, etc., often at jobs that locals wouldn’t do, thereby growing the economy. He goes on to argue that unfettered legal immigration is problematic in a welfare state because it’s possible for the new immigrants to consume more resources than they contribute.
I’m not saying I agree with this stance, but an argument can be made for it. I wouldn’t be surprised if many people who benefit from illegal immigrant labor are also OK with the current state of things, as opposed to increasing the legal immigration rate.
Well I think it’s safe to say that threads like this provide the insight on how the horrifying prospect of an 8-year Trump Administration is all-too possible.
On the one hand, we have the classic “borders are a violation of human rights.” Funny how how liberals always say this from the comfort of Western societies which actually value and protect human rights. You’re welcome to exercise your human right in North Korea or Syria if you wish to see for your own eyes what human rights violations entail.
And, on the other hand, the inimitable “our current immigration laws are racist and xenophobic to begin with” argument. Funny, then, that the nation which lets in the most legal immigrants, by far, should be seen as an affront to all decency. There should then be something like 190+ other nations whose laws are inarguably more racist and xenophobic. I wonder, too, if their emigrated countries of origin rank as such bastions of whiteness as India, China, and Mexico.
(These, by the way, are the to 3 home nations of legal immigration to the Unites States. The racism is just shocking, isn’t it?)
Long story short, liberals are f***ing clueless about why borders matter, and why average people think our current immigration system is fine. (Hint, that’s because it IS fine. It’s more open and generous than anywhere else, by a mile.)
So why support yahoo autocrats that want to stop or curtail that fine immigration system?
Thank you for all responses thus far. I truly appreciate the high level of discourse here, at least up to a point.
I have not read every post but let me comment on a couple of themes I’ve noticed. First, I do not favor mass deportation. Like Ann Landers said, we have to decide whether we are better off keeping people here or sending them away. Most immigrants that have come here illegally do so to make a better life and are productive. So I would like to see some path to citizenship, but at the same time we need to fix what’s broken for the continuing inflow. That’s what I meant by “acknowledge the law.” Develop a solution within our legal system as opposed to what we are doing now, which is basically allowing people to stay, and do so under the radar, simply by ignoring the situation.
All the sideshow about borders being a violation of humanitarian rights is just ridiculous. “(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country” means that a country can’t prevent you from leaving it (presumably if you are not being detained for breaking the law). It doesn’t mean you can go wherever you damn well please.
We allow a lot of immigrants, but we also have a huge native population. In reality we are very far down the list.
The raw data can be found in the U.N. report.
I was wondering when someone would make this about “us vs. them.” Also you seem to think there are two types of people, liberals and “average people.” You are suffering from the “false consensus” effect.
Yeah, I could really do without the “all liberals believe x” bullshit.
I don’t know the politics of any of the posters who have said that in this thread, but “borders are a violation of human rights” is not, generally, a liberal position. It’s more Libertarian than anything else,
No, we’re discussing the rights of nations to control who comes into their country and for what purpose. In the case of the US specifically, we’re discussing how best to address the issue of illegal immigrants who are already here and are de facto residents.
Everything else you mentioned may or may not be true, but seems immaterial to the topic.
Guilty as charged, I guess, at least on this issue. Free migration has worked well for Americans, and is working well for the E.U. There’s no reason we couldn’t work toward global free migration. I’m not saying we open every border in one fell swoop, but it wouldn’t hurt to start with, say, an agreement between the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the U.K. and then gradually expand it to include more countries. Each state in the U.S. retains its right to govern itself, except in areas that have been given up to the federal government. See Amendment X of the U.S. constitution.
Patriotism and nationalism are less derogatory words than racism, but they’re based on the same thing—an us vs. them mentality. What difference does it make, from a practical standpoint to the individuals affected, if they are discriminated against because of the color of their skin, or because of the geography of where they were born? Both are part of the innate character of the individual, and neither one is a choice.
Except, of course, that they are not. They are virulently anti-illegal immigration, and that I have no problem with. And it all circles back around to what the OP said: why are the majority of libs raising such hell about enforcing our immigration laws?
We pass out about a million greencards every year.
There are probably billions of people who would like to live in the USA. How many should we take? And how should we choose?
Its more an effort to equate anti-illegal immigration with anti-immigrant sentiment.
Too much of the anti-illegal immigration sentiment is actually anti-immigrant sentiment or just flat out racism. Sure some liberals make the association you are talking about but for many of us, the rhetoric surrounding anti-illegal immigration seems anti-immigrant.
I’m a bit confused. Are you talking about open borders where anyone can immigrate anywhere or one where nations and borders do not exist?
Because we used to have nations with VERY porous borders and these nations used to wage war on each other all the time.
If you are proposing the elimination of nations, then I would say that nations have been around since the dawn of civilization. It almost marks the point in time when civilization started. Nations can do things that unorganized men of the land cannot and those things give nations such a huge advantage over a disorganized group of villages and towns that I don’t see how nations can possibly not exist.
Or are you saying that we should have a single world government?
Your interpretation of that right is pretty radical. That particular declaration is mostly directed at places like North Korea where you cannot leave without getting an exit VISA. I think the UN would be fucking shocked to hear that their declaration was a call for open borders.
I don’t think its fine. Far too much of our immigration system is based on family sponsorship.
Well, more ignorance of what I have pointed before, nowhere I said that, what I said was that the fine immigration system is being set to become less human than it was. And many times I have said that I agree with the arrest and deportation of violent ones.
In any case I also did clarify that the problem is when bigoted leaders are selected to rule over the government offices that controlled immigration.
All of them, minus whatever standards we set for barring people with criminal backgrounds or ties to terrorism.
Immigration caps come from a fundamental position that immigrants are bad, and that we can only absorb so many of them, or only the ones with marketable skills. I don’t think the evidence supports that position; I think all immigration is inherently good in the long term, even unskilled immigrants, and we should take the fundamental position of letting them all in by default.
As many as can make it here on their own. I see no reason to make special arrangements for people to get here (except certain refugees that we might find it advantageous to help) or to help them settle, but everyone should have the chance. It’s not like we’re running out of room.
Why pick and choose? We don’t refuse to let people procreate unless their children will be doctors or lawyers, so why should we apply those sorts of limits to people entering the country through non-vaginal routes?
You are advocating a radical stance. It isn’t impossible that such an idea has merit but it is contrary to immigration policies for almost all countries in the world. You are going to have to defend that viewpoint much better because it simply doesn’t work that way.
I am astounded the American liberals are supporting illegal immigration because many of them are basically a modern day version of a slave class that have little freedom and work in deplorable conditions with no protection and sometimes for less than minimum wage. I have lived and worked among them myself. It is dumbfounding that anyone that claims to be liberal would support such a system. If you want to see it for yourself, take a tour of an egg farm or a slaughterhouse.
I am not opposed to individual illegal immigrants just like most people. The problem is that you can’t run a country by just letting anyone that walks in stay and then relegating those newcomers into some quasi-legal exploitative class. I don’t blame the illegal immigrants for doing it. I would probably try it myself if I were in their position.
The problem with ideas like yours is that that tears and emotion hinder blind you to effective public policy. My position is that the U.S. needs sweeping and comprehensive immigration reform and it shouldn’t be dependent on who has the most stamina to walk across an Arizona desert without dying so that they can become an ‘undocumented’ fruit picker. However, national borders are sovereign and that includes you. Try moving to Australia, Israel or Japan without proper procedures and reality will quickly slap you in the face.
The world doesn’t have open borders even though the U.S. is among the most generous in that regard. It is amazing how many people do not understand that simple reality. I like the term ‘a little happy confused’ when it comes to these discussions. It is like talking to a 5 year old. They have an idealistic way of the way things work even though they are completely off base. It is cute for an elementary school student but not so much for an adult.