I concede all of these things. I really wasn’t trying to make such broad generalizations. I don’t spend a lot of time in GD. I tend to exaggerate when I’m emotional about something–it’s not deliberate, and I will try to keep that in mind as I post in the future, as I certainly do not want my credibility in this area to be damaged in any way. I am really sorry if I offended you in any way with those sweeping statements.
My response may have been a little heated too, because my insecurity about my Spanish is a sore spot for me. I’m obviously not a native speaker, though I would love to be able to speak that well. The only objective qualification I have in the language is a B.A. in Spanish. I understood about 85% of the things I heard in Mexico; it really depends on the person speaking to me. I still make dumb language mistakes, but I assure you it’s not for lack of effort.
Am I remembering incorrectly that you have spent time living in Mexico (and perhaps, are Mexican?) I’d be interested in hearing a point-by-point response to that long post I made. The topic at hand is basically my life passion. Sometimes the most frustrating thing for me is that no matter how much I study, and no matter how much time I spend living in Mexico and/or working with immigrants, I will never truly have that experiential perspective that is so important to the work. Your thoughts about your own country are way more valuable to me than a textbook.
True enough, I suppose. But we all can’t visit everywhere, and I think you are trying to obscure what is generally true by nitpicking small details.
Incidentally, I have visited Mexico only a handful of times, and only got a few miles from the border. So since I know I cannot judge the country fairly from what I have directly seen, I prefer to do so by what I have read and what I have seen elsewhere, particularly in other areas of Latin America where I have traveled more extensively.
Most of what we know as individuals is gleaned from the knowledge and experience of others, so I’m sure you will allow this.
(1) is no contest, of course you can be for legal immigration and against illegal immigration; the rub lies in whether the political/social realities of the time make you think the wording is meant as a cover for some other policy issue.
(2) is a bit more complex but my take on this is the following: yes, as a human right, you should have the freedom to Emigrate, that is, you should not be a prisoner of your own country. HOWEVER where TO you relocate can be legitimately limited by the destination’s law; you are not entitled to demand admission. Just as if I get myself a job and a house in the town of Doperiana, my landlords and employers in Ignorantia should not be able to prevent me from leaving, similarly if I get an immigrant visa into the US or EU my home country should not be able to block my exit; but I should not expect to just show up elsewhere unnanounced and demand to be hired and accommodated.
The one condition I would plead in regards to a country’s authority to restrict immigration would be one of Equal Terms, that is, that everyone applying is subject to the same set of rules: whether you’re Mexican *or Cuban *… or Canadian or Russian or Lebanese or Israeli or Chinese, you must comply with the same terms, same conditions, same requirements.
These are good, probing points of comparison. Although, with respect to your last paragraph, even if it should turn out (as I think it does) that my viewpoint on immigration doesn’t originate from immigration-specific principles but from more general underlying principles, what of it? It may mean that the acceptability of my views on immigration is tied to the acceptability of those more general underlying principles, but this is bound to happen in most discussions with most people with respect to most particular issues. It doesn’t make my position any weaker or less worthy of discussion in this context, I think.
Now as for your examples…
I had written a long discussion of your two examples here, but I wasn’t happy with it, so I will hold off and try to write a better one later. However, in general, I would say my position is that activities undertaken with the consent of everyone directly involved should have a strong presumption to a default state of “allowed”, and that external rulemakers need a particularly compelling justified interest in the situation to gain the ethical authority to prohibit such things (which is to say, to forcibly prevent people from doing such things). And, when enumerating the people directly involved, one has to keep in consideration the owners of any property which is directly involved. You can perhaps guess what views this leads to with your examples, but, if not, hopefully I’ll get around to a worthwhile writeup of it later.
My Grandparents also came from Germany and France but they came here as legal immigrants, they had to wait on Ellis Island.
Illegal immigrants should not expect us to change the laws for them, all countries have laws regarding immigration. Breaking the law and expecting special treatment is not the way to respect our laws, and not just Mexican’s are here illegally.
One has the right to immigrate if done according to our laws, not against them, just as one doesn’t have the right to steal because one wnats to better their life.
I think emigration should be a basic human right. But not immigration - countries should be able to restrict the people who enter their country. That said, I think a very open standard on immigration is a good idea that benefits the receiving country.
I also question the idea that illegal immigration is wrong because it’s illegal - it’s a glibly simplistic answer. Anything is illegal is you pass a law against it and stops being illegal if you repeal the law. The issue is not whether illegal immigration is illegal, it’s whether it should be illegal.
My father’s parents came through Ellis Island, as well. (From East Galway.) Then they passed their physicals & were legal residents. No expensive immigration lawyers, no jumping through hoops.
But the laws changed. Yes, I think they could change again–to something more reasonable & realistic.
The point is not to dismiss your argument, but to clarify it. If you don’t accept that the government has a right to regulate people in either of these situations, than the discussion if there is a right of immigration needs to framed within this greater debate. It can be a part of the discussion, but focusing only on it misses the greater picture.
If you accept, as I do, that the government has a right to regulate some behaviors between people, such as sex in public restroom, but not others, such as the gender of consenting adults having sex in a private bedroom (or even on the kitchen table, if we’re going to get really wild here) then the question can be focused on the narrower question.
Let’s see if an example will help illustrate my point. If one were to say that all war is immoral, then it makes no sense debating the difference between preemptive attacks and repelling invasions. These can, and should be part of the greater discussion, but the larger question must be resolved first.
I have stated my position concerning government regulation of behaviors, and by you clarifying your position, it will frame the next step of the discussion.
I completely agree with this. I also believe that individual rights must be taken into careful consideration when crating laws, and it must be a compelling need to protect the public interest in order to override an individual’s rights.
However, there are cases where public interest trumps individual rights, (the classic case of not having the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie house) and this extends to one’s property. People do not have the right to dump toxic waste in their backyard.
If any of us did it intentionally, we truly would be idiots. BUt I think you should not worry so much. I think you do a great job of addiing to the debate. Particularly a post like the one I’m responding to. One poster’s opinion, anyway.
Well, I look back to what I learned about Natural Law Theory. But I think the important thing is to remember, for me anyway, is that human rights as discussed in the D of I (and are what we usually mean in these discussions) are very fundemental. They are what can be enjoyed sans society. They come with the individual existing as an entity. This is important, as they are NOT rights given by the state or a monarch, which is why they are inalienable, i.e., inseperable from the individual. In fact, the very reason of stating them is not to grant them, but to remind people that they can’t be taken away. A play I enjoy that explores the subject is Antigone, by Sophocles. It’s a quick read and I recommend it.
I’m so glad you shared this. I’ve made general statements about it in the past, but I didn’t have your first-person account. But I think it clear that Mexico, the country, does it’s citizens a great disservice. The corruption is rampant and seems to get in the way of the changes it needs. I really think that the best thing for the country in the long run would be to seal it. Let it boil and let the revolution that is evidently needed happen.
What would you think if similar factories were spread throughout Mexico. It seems that would be much more helpful. Yes? No?
I don’t think anyone can argue with that.
This, assuming it is correct, as I do, is a very astute insight. It would be ionteresting to see a study done that explored how Mexicans view their government, law enforcement, etc. and how Americans view those things.
Wow. Just WOW. I think it’s time for that revolution.
Some times the hardest thing to do is to not help someone. Especially if you are an empathetic sort. But if you reward ( your services) bad behavior you are tacitly encouraging it. I don’t really know what your options are, but I wish that people here would not make it easier for illegals. They should make it as difficult as possible. They only think I thiink we owe them is emergency medical care. This is an unpopular notion on these boards, but I stand by it. The more difficult it is to come here illegally or to stay here illegally, the more people will stay in Mexico (and elsewhere) until they can come here legally. IN the mean time, maybe the boil will begin. Particularly if Mexico starts to lose the funds sent back from the U.S>
Ideally I’d like to tackle the issue on both fronts–do community work AND research at the same time? I believe the research will go a lot farther toward actually finding a solution to the problem–but most people who have a hard and immobile opinion on this matter really have no clue what Mexico is up against. From an outside observer’s standpoint, it almost seems like a cultural instinct to fail as a nation.*
[/QUOTE]
What would you think about the study I mentioned? I thin it interesting and could be instructional as to understanding the different mindsets of the two cultures. If they are, in fact, different.
I think your husband is onto something. Look at the Mafia, or the Irish before them. It seems like it is part of human nature to default to family—tribe—nation, in that order.
Another point that is not brough up enough. There’s a black activist in LA, I think, Ted something, how has been trying to get the hispanic leaders to meet with him to address the issue. He’s having a very difficult time. But you are so right. Not only do illegals come and take jobs that would go to our own underclass, bu they lower wages for a big swath of the population, too. Long term there is another problem: we are training american companies to operate with these lower costs. I have a recurring argument with my brother’s friend who runs a nation-wide construction company. He says that he MUST be able to hire these illegals because otherwise he can’t compete. But when I suggest that if everyon’s cost goes up the same percent due to the increase in labior costs, then everyone is still in the exact same competitive (relative) position.
There are many legal immigrants that need help. And I’m sure not all of them are getting it. But if you would like to live in Mexico, it sound like the people there could really use your help and would be fortunate to have you.
I t sound like that at the end of the day you are helping people that really need it. So I thiink you have earned the right to a sound sleep.
Olive, sorry it took me so long to respond, but I didn’t have a block of time that I wanted to spend on a reply. I really enjoyed your post.
Perhaps the laws should be changed,but that should not apply to the ones who are breaking the laws to come here. There has to be some way to accomodate people who wish to immigrate. but we should also take into the consideration of weither we will benifit as a people or not. If we just open our borders and have no immigration laws we will soon have chaos and will be in worse shape than Mexico. That is what illegal immigration becomes if not checked.
I can see the argument of immigration as a human right.
I mean, one of the big wrongs made by the world’s worst regimes (Soviet Russia, Apartheid South Africa…) were restricting people’s freedom to move and settle where they pleased.
Of course, it is different between countries than within countries- but not all that different in today’s global society where the decisions of one government can affect people’s lives in other countries no matter what their own government does.
Excellent point. Except remember this: as a consequence, we are also training American consumers to buy things at these lower costs. Are you willing to pay more for many, many things?
Olivesmarch – May I add that another thing any of us who have knowledge (academic or through experience) of both Mexico and the U.S. can do is simply to teach, formally or in talking to folks when it comes up or in fora like the SDMB, whatever we can about the other country. Simply helping to dispel misconceptions, bit by bit, does a great service to briniging about eventual solutions, at the local and national level. IMHO.
Even sven – I liked your post. Finally, someone who agrees with me that the deeper moral issue partly relates to our privileging nation-state boundaries over any other (I know how hard it would be to change thhat quickly in practical terms, but, as even sven alluded to, this nation-state emphasis for the permitted location of human bodies hasn’t caught up with the global reality of human ideas, products, and money).
I can’t believe I’ve only been a ‘Guest member’ a little while after about a decade of lurking, and I’m already posting in GD.
I may have lost my mind. I may as well head over to the Pit now and confirm the immolation of my sanity.
I can’t say how much I am enjoying (most) of this debate.
A couple of comments come to mind - 1: We’re not just talking US law here (though that’s the most relevant example to most of you, so the eaxample is pretty relevant). We’re talking the existence of a universal moral principle. The right to cross borders. Does this right exist? If so, should it be an over-riding right? (Sometimes rights interfere with each other. Just because someone gets hurt doesn’t mean it’s not a right).
2: I’m on no-one’s side in this. Unrestrained immigration in the current climate will mean an influx of everybody to the US as the most obvious, richest liberal democracy. My questions regarding this: Would the economic strain be worse than, say, a foriegn war to liberate a country (for an example pulled out of the air for no reason at all)?
That’s probably a little more facetious than I intended. I really am interested in knowing the relative costs. Economists?
My personal hang-up: Would that be of benefit to more people than it hurts?
Another point - Assuming negative consequences to the US from unrestrained immigration, surely there will be a tipping point where going there would no longer be the best option. My personal thought is that this would happen *long * before the US reached the third world status some fear. Partly because there are OTHER liberal democracies in the world, often easier to migrate to for the desperate for geographical reasons. Plus, there are a lot of politicians/dictators who would suddenly realise that, shit, there’s not much point having all this power if there’s no frickin citizens to have that power over. If they didn’t get the point, their successor sure will.
The way I come down on this issue (atm. This thread is opening all sorts of thoughts for me)
is that there would be some hardships if this were, if not a globally realised right, but one generally accepted by a majority of liberal democracies, but on the whole, the long term benefits would be worth it. Power seems to reside in material, land and people. Mainly in people. Let people vote with thier feet in a more profound way, and you introduce a form of democracy that doesn’t require ballots. You vote yes by staying, no by leaving. Everywhere becomes a democracy by default. Isn’t that one of the more positive goals of US foriegn policy?
Cerberus wrote:
Depends on what you call a ‘healthy’ civil culture. Immigration and its related transport of ideas have usually been FANTASTIC for cultural growth. From food to art to music to sport to clothing to anything else you can think of. It is impossible to adulterate a culture. Cultures change, immigration or no immigration. It is only possible to stagnate culture or dilute it. And dilution can only come by insisiting one one approved type of culture - like China’s Cultural Revolution. Didn’t that do great things for *their * civil culture? (Oh, Og, you have never read anything worse than a Party-Approved, Post-Cultural Revolution short story :eek: )
And ditto ‘language’. English is such a fun, interesting thing to play with because of all it’s NOT a pure, given-by-the-gods thing. Saxon/French-Norman/Gaelic/Latin/Greek/German/everything-else-it’s-ever-come-into-contact-with have enriched my beloved first tongue in wonderful ways. We have dialect words in English from almost every other major language group. And it will continue to enrich itself. God forbid we get all proscriptive like the French who seem to want to strangle their own language by NOT letting it grow naturally. Immigration will not bring down English or any other non-proscriptive language. It will make it better, cooler, richer.
Besides, having more than one language spoken in the country has done terrible, soul-destroying things to those known third-world countries like Canada, Switzerland, Belgium etc…
Economy, though. Debatable, but that’s a point I’ll concede.
Sorry if this comes across more sarcastic than I really intend. It’s just that I have had arguments with the kind of people who misuse ‘literally’ and think they can proscribe cultural and linguistic norms on other people. I can see the fear in their eyes, not the rationality I know must be in there somewhere. It gets frustrating. From the rest of your post I know you’re coming for a more thought-out position than they are. Even if I do disagree with some of it. (Not all, I think points one and two are interesting. Point two raises some interesting real-world solutions that may actually worth trialling if you wanted to put pressure on the Mexican Govt.)
When I was younger, I thought I could go anywhere to live. But when I got there, I found out every country had red tape and waiting lists. Even the most impoverished. And they especially resented that I thought immigration was easy when I came from one of the toughest countries to get into.
If the U.S. had a "everyone welcome"policy today you would receive million upon million of emigrants from the third world where many of the population believe that the West is paved with gold.
Many of these emigrants would probably have no useful skills or any real liklihood of getting any sort of a job,in fact many of them probably wouldn’t even be able to speak English.
There would be a nett rise in U.S. poverty,crime and racial tension.
As a previous poster said if you can just up stakes and go to where the living is easier your not going to try very hard to improve things in your own country.
I suspect the Americans supporting an open door immigration policy would soon alter their opinions if it was actually put into practice .
I also think thoses who are not U.S. citizens but are happily pushing for an open door policy should declare their interest.
i.e. mention the fact that they are foreign nationals .
I’m a Brit. by the way.
BUt I think you should not worry so much. I think you do a great job of addiing to the debate. Particularly a post like the one I’m responding to. One poster’s opinion, anyway.