I just got done listening to a speaker that had two major points.
Anti-illegal-immigration is equal to anti-immigration. In other words, there are only two sides to the argument: close the borders and don’t let anyone come across or open up the borders and let everybody in. Believe it or not, I’ve seen people make this straw-man argument all the time (e.g. If you don’t want illegals here you’re a racists. Immigrants . . ." even on this board. Hell, even Penn & Teller’s Bullshit made this same error. So in the interest of GD, does anyone want to dispute this point: You can be against illegal immigration yet still support legal immigration.
Rant over. This person also said that the right to immigrate to improve your life is a human right. Let’s ignore legal vs illegal immigration for a second and ask, is the right to move to a country with more opportunities a human right or a political right?
Furthermore, what limitations should there be on immigration? Is anyone allowed to become a citizen? What about quota systems? Should the emmigrants country have any financial burden? What about anchor babies? Admittedly, this is a little more in depth than the original question, but I can’t help thinking that the answers to these questions are somehow related to the view of immigration as a human or political right.
I’m all for legal immigration over illegal emigration. The path by which I’m all for it involves looking at most of the people who do immigrate illegally, and saying “Alright. These people should’ve been allowed to immigrate just as easily, legally.”
You can be against illegal immigration without being against immigration. But you can’t be for keeping it difficult to immigrate legally without also, to that extent, being against immigration.
In my ideal world, anyone could go anywhere. But that’s not the way the real world works, and so I concur that there is a real difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigration. And yes, I believe it’s possible to accept those who get visas, greencards etc and not those who simply cross a border. I am, incidentally, a legal immigrant to the USA.
As to the questions in your last paragraph, I could literally answer them in a non-lawyer sort of way, but I suspect they are rhetorical.
Edit to add the word “not”, which pretty significantly changes the meaning of my post.
Eating is a human right, but that right does not mean that one is entitled to filet mignon. And when I was younger and my family struggled, we didn’t get steak in the boxes from the food bank.
Just because someone struggles in a foreign land does not necessarily mean they have an unlimited right to come here, nor even that that solution would be the best one if that right were unlimited. Mexico’s political development, for example, is skewed tremendously be the fact that millions of its citizens have left - taking pressure off of the system to reform and keeping the existing structure afloat with remittances that stream into the economy there.
I see what you’re saying, but let’s be careful. While I’m sure some illegals do well by their own standards, I would hesitate to suggest that coming to the USA and doing back-breaking labour for less than minimum wage is exactly the “filet mignon” of living. It’s more like “the best baloney you could find at the time.”
True enough, and I’m not really arguing against immigration laws. In fact, as a legal immigrant, I had to jump through many hoops that were in place solely to keep out the illegal immigrants. That was wearing, especially since I was immigrating from a country I would have been more than happy to stay in if it weren’t for my love of one particular US citizen.
Eating is a human need but I do not agree that it is a right. Immigration is also not a right and it’s certainly possible to be against illegal immigration without being against legal immigration.
I’m generally in favor of loosening many immigration restrictions worldwide but also in strictly enforcing what restrictions there are. In a perfect world everybody could move wherever they wanted to but in the world we have that’s not practical.
If we agree that human rights exist to any extent, I would think things like adequate medical care, education, and having a roof over your head should be considered human rights.
It would seem to me that if you weren’t able to obtain those things in your own country, and your only resort was leaving the country, there might be some legitimate argument that immigration is a human right.
I am in a rather delicate position on this one. I work with immigrants, legal and illegal, all the time. I plan to dedicate the majority of my time to taking care of immigrants’ needs and helping them feel more comfortable here. I don’t really care whether the individuals I’m helping are legal or illegal–just people to me.
But this does not mean that I think illegal immigration is good for the U.S. OR Mexico. The influx of immigrants is hell on the health system here, and seems to be taking away resources that are already limited for those living in poverty here. Meanwhile, in Mexico, the economy has become so U.S. centric that nobody is investing within the country, and those who are educated tend to get out as soon as they can.
I just don’t think it’s fair to punish individuals for trying to make their lives better. Working at McDee’s really is the ‘‘filet mignon’’ of living to a Mexican, where the national minimum wage is $4/day*–though I lament the conditions under which the breadwinners in the U.S. have to live and work.
*No, it’s not as cheap to live in Mexico as many assume. $4 in Mexico will take you a little further than it does in the U.S., but not much.
Disagree. Governments that prevent immigration or emigration aren’t governments that respect human rights.
Now, this sort of thing can be restricted to a degree, which can be perfectly legitimate. But as I said, a certain degree of mobility of populations is to be expected among free people, and the goal of policy ought to be managing this.
Well, we know for fact that the government makes it easier for it’s citizens to immigrate illegally. It is probably not idle to speculate that the government believes it is acting in it’s own best interests. As to the specifics, any speculation on my part *would *be idle.
If 1) is true, then if you allow some people into your home, then you don’t have the right to prevent anyone from coming into your home.
if 2) is true, then you don’t have the right to prevent anyone from coming into your home.
Philosopically speaking, the only difference between a house and a country is the size of the border and the ability to limit access, which have no impact on this discussion at all.
Supposing I own an apartment, and want to rent it to an immigrant. My buddy runs a business and wants to hire the immigrant. Etc., etc. We’re all perfectly happy to let the guy into our places. Barring extraordinary circumstances, why should anyone else get to veto our mutually desired arrangement?
This may be a news flash, but the US is a (representative) democracy. If you want to change the rules, get enough other people to vote in politicians who will change the rules.
RE the analogy: You’re sharing an apartment with four other roommates. A dude applies for the vacant sixth room. Two of you want to let the dude move in. The other three don’t. The result: the immigration policy of the apartment denies the guy his green card.
Either way, the dude doesn’t have the right to move in.