“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
Sounds like when he said “all men” he meant “all men,” not “U.S. citizens.”
You must not work in the IT industry, since companies there claim worker shortages requiring the use of H1B visas despite relatively high unemployment in the industry.
Clearly the immigrants are outcompeting the legals one way or another, or the farmers wouldn’t take the risk of hiring them. I’ve never heard of farmers recruiting illegals - I believe they show up, and so it is much simpler for the farmer than going through the paperwork to get legals.
Plus, can someone explain to me why hiring low cost illegals in the US is substantially different from sending jobs to low cost suppliers like China? Morally speaking, I mean.
Let me get this straight Lavenderblue and Honesty. By virtue of being born in the same geographical area filled with productive land and resources that your genetic ancestor captured and drew a line around, you have a greater right to the benefits of those resources than those who have the misfortune of having different historical circumstance in their ancestory?
If this isn’t the case, then what did you do personally to earn your right to a rich life that someone risking their life crossing an arbitrary border did not do?
Poverty in Mexico is very real. Now we can talk about the causes, and I’m pretty curious about them myself, but rampant poverty is a fact there.
Now the Mexican people as a whole might be able to address the issue, but a single Mexican is only 1 of 90,000,000.
In my hypothetical Canada economically sound/American impoverished scenario, would you illegally immigrate to Canada to feed your family?
Be careful - by attacking the rights of inheritance, you are challenging the rights of possession. I see little difference between telling somebody to go into the states and use their facilities (like ERs) and telling somebody to go into your (that is, Dioptre’s) house and loot the medicine cabinet.
Evidently the cost of labor for things like lettuce and apples is just about 6% of the price. That claim is supported [here:
](The Wages of Agricultural Workers | FAIRUS.org) and here:
So, you’d barely notice it.
Well if you follow inheritance to it’s conclusion. Why are most Americans squatting on Native American land?
Wait. You contradict yourself below. Here you say we can’t draw imaginary lines, but below you say, “If people want to organize and say, “in this area, we’re going to live by these laws,” (the development of countries) fine by me,…”. Well, “this area” is the thing called a country which is demarcated by “lines”—BORDERS!
So, which is it?
Evidently I did merit my citizenship, because by the law I am a citizen. Did I luck out where I was born. Absolutely. But I got robbed by being born with poor jumping ability and a sucky singing voice. The injustice of it all haunts me daily.
Why not? Please answer the following questions:
-
If you grant that “an area” can have laws that apply to its environs, why can’t one of those laws regulate who can come in? Yes or no?
-
How do you know where this “area” is? Are their lines of some sort?
-
Let’s say this “area” is surrounded by other countries, does not the “area” have a right to keep people out that they don’t want in? Or at least check out who they are before they come in? Yes or no?
Let’s not go off on a tangent, but the two rights are not in any way linked, either as they pertain to citizenship or property. They just happen to co-exist in many states. Owning property or citizenship does not have to mean you have a right to dispose of it after death. Now with real property it’s hard to prevent this - if you allow transfer of property in any form, people will find a way to transfer it to their children.
Citizenship though is absolute - there’s no reason why anyone deserves citizenship in any country more than any other person. Genetic similarity to current citizens is a really crumby citizenship test.
Proving a willingness to risk life and liberty in pursuit of family, wealth or happiness and you think these people AREN’T qualified to be USA citizens?
You forgot this part, the part that goes to self-determiination and the reason for starting a new country:
It is prefectly consistent to not allow people in and treat them as equals when they come here, unless they have done something to deserve unequal treatment. Like breaking our laws by sneaking in or overstaying visas.
That’s a good question. And on one level—depriving American citizens of jobs—I guess they are on the same moral level. But the comparison doesn’t stop there. One group has broken our laws to enter illegally. And just because of the sheer numbers, the fact that they are here, many with no english and low education, they put additional pressure on society—schools, hospitals—and the culture.
magellan01 - yaaaaawn. I’m pretty sure you’ve tried to pull this exact trick in these threads before. My position is clear. You can have government and laws and borders without those laws being prohibitive of who is allowed to cross the border. I’m not going to respond further to strawmen.
Possibly. But if I did and found myself in jail or on a bus back I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. I’d expect it. And then I’d probably try harder to make a go of it here.
Say that Mexicans are paid half of minimum wage, then you’re talking a six percent increase on the price of food.
Your average individual, buying produce for himself and cooking it at home, over the course of a month will spend about $150. Let’s say that only 1/4th of that is vegetable and fruit produce ($37.50). 6% of that is $2.25 per month. Over the course of a year, that’s $27. Now we have something like 350,000,000 Americans, so we’re talking $9,450,000,000 more money to be spent a year.
$2.25 extra spending in a month is a pretty major number when you look at the entire economy. That’s going to have some pretty non-inconsequential effects.
Chiming in to agree whole-heartedly with everything Dioptre posted. That’s what really sticks in my proverbial craw about the immigration debate, the self-righteous sense of entitlement that some people have. I’m a natural born citizen of this country and I’m damn thankful for that fact. My life is much easier and more comfortable than the vast majority of the people born on this earth as a result. But to borrow an analogy, I was born on third base. I’m sure as hell not about to go around acting like I hit a home run.
Justify illegal immigration? How about justifying immigration laws, laws which in this country are less than 100 years old, and were put in place for all the wrong reasons.
Strawman? Do you even know what that means? It doesn’t appear that you do? You contradicted yourself in your own post! You pooh-pooh borders, yet allow for them, without examining what they mean to the people who reside within them. THAT is why you don’t want to answer the questions. Because it will reveal just how ill-thought-out and flimsy your position in. If you disagree with that assessment, man up.
The thread has to do with the justification for illegal immigration. Borders play a big role in that discussion, especially if you question their usefulness or validity as concepts. So, please, don’t be a little lightweight and defend your own position.
My parents earned it for me by paying taxes and otherwise contributing to the country. They purchased my citizenship for me. If I chose to purchase or gain a citizenship elsewhere I am perfectly free to do so, but by joining another nation’s population, I’m going up against a bunch of people who are already all paid off in their service to their nation.
The reason I said morally is that of course the difference is legality. Smoking dope is illegal too, but I suspect most dopers would say there is nothing immoral with it. Given that both types of outsourcing are roughly equivalent morally, we should either make them both legal or both illegal.
I well understand the issues you raise, but around me they happen with purely legal immigrants. Making them legal would lead to better jobs for them and the reduction of many of the issues you mention.
Practically speaking we are stuck with both outsourcing and illegal immigration. I’m betting you wouldn’t want to pay the taxes required to really secure the border - which would inconvenience legals also. When I was in San Diego a few weeks ago the traffic reports gave delays at the border crossings, which seemed to be 90 minutes to 2 hours on a summer weekday.
:rolleyes: I already explained myself. You’re attacking a strawman.