Time For The Fence Along The Border

Great Debates
241

[QUOTE=randyjet]
In previous posts I have given cites which you have chosen not to check out.
[/QUOTE]
You are, not surprisingly, missing the point rather badly. People who post, here, have an interest in a wide variety of topics and discussions, not only in this Forum, but in the other seven Fora on this board. They rarely behave with a monomaniacal fixation on a specific topic, reading and posting to only a single thread. It is true that it is possible to spend the time to look up all of your claims and see which ones you happened to get right vs which ones you either invented or misunderstood. However, you are the one proposing the thesis. By the conventions of debate, in general, and the protocols of this board, in particular, you are the one who is supposed to provide substantiation for your claims. If you fail to do so, then we are free to dismiss your claims as those of any other Cliff Clavin type. Since it is you who are trying to persuade us, it is in your interest to make your case both as convincing and as well documented as you can so that we do not simply dismiss you as one more raver.

Now, if you believe that a one-line toss-out that you may have misunderstood from a presidential speech is sufficient support for a claim that you make in an argument–support that you cannot even provide when challenged on the topic other than to claim you think you heard something–you are demonstrating to the people with whom you are engaged that you are not interested in a factual debate, but merely in hurling wild claims back and forth. If the point of starting this thread is to persuade others of your viewpoint, then that is exactly the wrong way to do it. It is not incumbent upon your audience to run around seeing how many “facts” you got wrong or how many “facts” you invented. The posters participating in this thread are also participating in other threads where the people with whom they are engaged are actually following protocol and providing the direct citations needed to support their position.
If your point is starting this thread was simply to rant about the evils of a fenceless border, then you should have posted this in the BBQ Pit. If that was your desire, I can move this thread there, for you.

242

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
randyjet, I’ll have you know I was a history major. And yes, slavery was practiced in some other forms. I’m not saying it wasn’t. But the idea that the US was somehow just doing what everyone else did? Not that I’m aware of-at least at that time.
[/quote]

Since we are telling our credentials here, I will give some of mine. I am a Vietnam era veteran of the US Air Force and an airline captain. Though I was not a history major, I do have a large interest in the subject. In my job I am required to undergo, a physical, line checks, complete written, oral and sim checks every six months to simply keep my job. I think judging from the lack of knowledge of some posts the same should be done for others, especially in areas that they claim to have knowledge.

Just a cursoy look at the web shows some interesting things. The US in our Constitution banned the slave trade before Britain did. They banned the slave trade only when the US ban was to take effect in 1808. Britain abolished slavery in 1834 with compensation. Slavery existed in the Spanish colonies until 1886 in Cuba and in Brazil slavery existed until that time as well. As for the significance of that, I would remind you that according to the wikipedia about 95% of the slave trade went to places other than the US. So I will let you decide which is more important. Is liberating 5% of the grand total earlier than 95% of them more heinous than the fact that most of the New Worlds slaves were still slaves long after the US emancipation? In short, who is the greater sinner in that regard?

I agree that the serfs were not exactly the same as chattel slaves. That was more due to the fact that the US had wide open areas for settlement and tying slaves to land would not make sense and that they were imported and not native to the US.

I hope your knowledge of geography is better than yours of history so that we can agree that Spanish colonies and Brazil would be considered part of the western nations. AS for mainland Europe the last European country to free the serfs was Russia. That was done at the same time as the US I believe in 1865. So the fact is yes the US was indeed doing what the rest of the world was doing. IN some areas, the US was in the lead in abolishing slavery. I never heard of any former slave owners granting pensions to their former slaves as Washington did. You can check that out by reading a book, gasp! An Imperfect God, Washington his Slaves and the Creation of America. I recommend it.

243

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Yeh, yeh . . . Howboutcha tell us where you really stand on the race thing and why?
[/QUOTE]

Where oh where is TOMnDeb when you need him? For your info, I was active in the civil rights movement in the 60s, our group had to meet off campus because the school administration refused to let us use any school facilities for civil rights purposes. In high school I was also active and am one of the few on this board to have actually heard Dr. King in person I imagine. I missed the march on Washington because I was not 18 and my mother would not sign the waiver letting me go. I have been fighting the Klan quite literally long before most of you were born.

244

[QUOTE=randyjet]
Where oh where is TOMnDeb when you need him? For your info, I was active in the civil rights movement in the 60s, our group had to meet off campus because the school administration refused to let us use any school facilities for civil rights purposes. In high school I was also active and am one of the few on this board to have actually heard Dr. King in person I imagine. I missed the march on Washington because I was not 18 and my mother would not sign the waiver letting me go. I have been fighting the Klan quite literally long before most of you were born.
[/QUOTE]

Good to know. So why do you propose an immigration system aimed at preserving our country’s current racial composition? Why should immigration policy pay any attention to that at all?

245

[QUOTE=randyjet]
Where oh where is TOMnDeb when you need him? For your info, I was active in the civil rights movement in the 60s, our group had to meet off campus because the school administration refused to let us use any school facilities for civil rights purposes. In high school I was also active and am one of the few on this board to have actually heard Dr. King in person I imagine. I missed the march on Washington because I was not 18 and my mother would not sign the waiver letting me go. I have been fighting the Klan quite literally long before most of you were born.
[/QUOTE]

Are some of your best friends Mexican?

246

[QUOTE=randyjet]
I hope your knowledge of geography is better than yours of history so that we can agree that Spanish colonies and Brazil would be considered part of the western nations. AS for mainland Europe the last European country to free the serfs was Russia. That was done at the same time as the US I believe in 1865. So the fact is yes the US was indeed doing what the rest of the world was doing.
[/quote]

Russian serfdom was abolished in 1861.

The civil war was just starting in the USA.

Funny thing, I read that about Washington, but regarding the abolition of slavery that act was a drop in the bucket. That covers some area I guess.

247

[QUOTE=even sven]
How do you think that is related to the fact that 20% of this country was fairly recently Mexico?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it is all that relevant, nor was it Mexico all that recently. Of course, it explains to some degree why the culture is so prevelant, moreso than in, say, Billings or Akron. I would say it has more to do with proximity, the coprution and lack of opportunity in Mexico, and the complicity of the Reps and Dems in not enforcing our laws, especially those pertaining to employers.

[QUOTE=even sven]
Doesn’t democracy need a fairly free flow of people to work?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it needs it. I don’t see why a society closed to outsiders could still function as a healthy democracy. Do yo think differently?

Now, I happen to think that a free flow of people is usually a good thing, but we’d probably define free flow differently, particulalry the “free” part. I’m all for *legal *immigration and have long been of the opinion that we need to both simplify our system and make it easier for more people to come here. How many? I don’t know. For the purposes of this discussion, pick any number you like. As long as those people are known to us and checked out *before *they get here, great. But whatever that number is—deterimined by how many we need and can assimilate without taxing the system or hurting whatever American workers they migh be competing with—anyone else who sneaks in (or overstays their visa) gets immediately rounded up, arrested, and deported. That seems perfectly sensible. Don’t you? If not, what type of policy do you think we should have? Are you an advocate of a completely open border?

248

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Good to know. So why do you propose an immigration system aimed at preserving our country’s current racial composition? Why should immigration policy pay any attention to that at all?
[/QUOTE]

This is truly a good question. Persoanlly, I think in a perfect world that our immigration policywould be meritocratic. We’d measure the needs that we have and let in those who best fit those needs. I will admit that I also like the racial make-up of this country pretty much the way it is. Now I’,m white, and part of the majority, but I wouldn’t be surprised, or offended, if people of other races were moer inclined to want to see more of there own race here. I think it’s pretty natural. But a racial change in any direction wouldn’t particulalry bother me, as long as it was done very gradually and we didn’t lose the one culture that is often overlooked: the American culture.

One that has to be part of the equation regarding immigration policy is the fact that we have a huge influx of people coming in from the south, with many more behind them wanting to come. And it is much easier for them to come than someone from, say, Poland or Sudan or Malaysia or Angola. If we do not have an official policy as far as national or racial make-up, we’re stuck with an accidental one, due to Mexico’s proximity, the pourous border, and the strong desire of Meixicans and those from points south to come here.

With all the millions of people from the many countries throughout the world who would like to be part of America, shouldn’t we give the Pole, the Namibian, the Laotian, the Ethipoian, the Finn the same possibility of improving their lot in life as Canadiens and Mexicans?

249

[QUOTE=magellan01]
. . . and we didn’t lose the one culture that is often overlooked: the American culture.
[/quote]

“Often overlooked”?! It’s in your face everywhere you go, and not just in America!

[QUOTE=magellan01]
If we do not have an official policy as far as national or racial make-up, we’re stuck with an accidental one, due to Mexico’s proximity, the pourous border, and the strong desire of Meixicans and those from points south to come here.
[/quote]

True. So what?

[QUOTE=magellan01]
With all the millions of people from the many countries throughout the world who would like to be part of America, shouldn’t we give the Pole, the Namibian, the Laotian, the Ethipoian, the Finn the same possibility of improving their lot in life as Canadiens and Mexicans?
[/QUOTE]

Isn’t that how it is now? There are no more national-origin quotas. We don’t subsidize travel or relocation expenses for anyone who wants to come here – are you suggesting we should, if the would-be immigrant is from the Old World?

250

I know that some posters are averse to actually posting facts or citing them, but here are the dates for abolition in the Western World:

1807, Britain and the United States outlawed the African slave trade.

1821 gradual abolition in Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela
1823 Chile agreed to emancipate its slaves.
1829 Mexico abolished slavery (one of the reason that Texas wanted to be independent: to keep its American slaves in bondage).
1833, Britain emancipated 780,000
1848, Denmark and France freed slaves in their colonial empires.
1863 Surinam and other Dutch New World colonies

1865 United States (but only because it was forced by the political expediency of the Civil War)

1886 Cuba
1888 Brazil
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=81

And from this page:
1761 Slavery abolished in mainland Portugal
1787 Foundation of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade
1794 Slavery abolished in French Colonies
1802 Slavery reintroduced in French Colonies
1803 Slave trading abolished in Denmark
1807 Slave trading abolished by Britain and United States
1811 Slavery abolished in Spain and Spanish Colonies (violently opposed in Cuba and unenforced)
1813 Slave trading abolished by Sweden
1814 Slave trading abolished by The Netherlands
1817 Slave trading abolished by France (not effective until 1826)
1819 Slave trading abolished north of the equator by Portugal
1820 Slave trading abolished by Spain
1834 Slavery abolished in British Colonies (but slaves apprenticed until 1838)
1842 Slaves freed in Uruguay
1843 Slaves freed in Argentina
1843 Slavery abolished in Swedish Colonies
1848 Slavery abolished in French and Danish Colonies
1851 Slave trading abolished by Brazil
1854 Slavery abolished in Peru
1858 Slavery abolished in Portuguese Colonies (but slaves apprenticed for 20 years)
1861 Slavery abolished in Dutch Colonies in Caribbean

1865 Slavery abolished in the United States

1870 Slavery abolished in Cuba
1888 Slavery abolished in Brazil
So, the U.S. was one of the very last Western Nations to abolish slavery and was not “in the lead in abolishing slavery,” anywhere (a desire to confuse factoids with history, notwithstanding).

251

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
“Often overlooked”?! It’s in your face everywhere you go, and not just in America!
[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand me. I’m not saying that it is not prevelant, I’m saying that it is never held up as anything of value in and of itself. In the name of diversity, the thing that gives way is the the culture that is perceived as not being diverse or ethnic enough—the backgound culture on which all these things take place: one that is traditional American.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
True. So what?
[/QUOTE]

As I stated, I think it unfair to the people from the rest of the world.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Isn’t that how it is now? There are no more national-origin quotas. We don’t subsidize travel or relocation expenses for anyone who wants to come here – are you suggesting we should, if the would-be immigrant is from the Old World?
[/QUOTE]

No. I’m saying that with the problem of immigration on our southern border, and the proposed version of amnesty, that the result benefits one country (and those south). That the reality is a de facto preference for one culture over the many others in the world.

252

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No. I’m saying that with the problem of immigration on our southern border, and the proposed version of amnesty, that the result benefits one country (and those south). That the reality is a de facto preference for one culture over the many others in the world.
[/QUOTE]

Assuming that is unfair, or a problem, what would you do about it?

253

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
1829 Mexico abolished slavery (one of the reason that Texas wanted to be independent: to keep its American slaves in bondage)

1865 United States (but only because it was forced by the political expediency of the Civil War)
[/QUOTE]

Your adding commentary here gives the impression that every other nation abolished slavery for purely noble reasons and that America had its arm twisted or did so for political expediance. Was this a sentiment you wished to convey or was it accidental? Or did Der Trihs somehow hack into the system and add the commentary?

254

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Assuming that is unfair, or a problem, what would you do about it?
[/QUOTE]

Before we move on to that, I ask you, do you think it is unfair?

255

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Before we move on to that, I ask you, do you think it is unfair?
[/QUOTE]

No. It’s just the way things work out. Mexicans and Canadians live closer to the U.S. than anybody else so they have a better chance of making their way here. They’re also the countries whose economies are most closely intertwined with ours – even before NAFTA – so it’s not unfitting. But if Laotians really, really want to come to the U.S., they’ll find a way.

In any case, why is a predominance of Mexican immigrants an undesirable thing for the U.S.?

256

The people with the best chances of immigrating to the UK, if they want to, are:

  1. The Irish

  2. Citizens of Commonwealth countries

  3. Continental Europeans

Is that in any way unfair to the rest of the world?

257

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Your adding commentary here gives the impression that every other nation abolished slavery for purely noble reasons and that America had its arm twisted or did so for political expediance. Was this a sentiment you wished to convey or was it accidental? Or did Der Trihs somehow hack into the system and add the commentary?
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily noble, perhaps practical.

Only Cuba raised as much resistance to abolition. The Spanish provinces were nominally rendered “free states” in 1811, under Spain, and they tended to drag their feet regarding abolition, yet, with the exception of Cuba, every one of them had abolished slavery prior to 1830.

The point of the comment regarding the U.S. was that had the South not forced the issue, it is quite possible that the U.S. would have continued to permit slavery for many years subsequent to 1865, making randyjet’s absurd claim tha the U.S. was a “leader” in emancipation even more risible. There was an abolitionist movement in the U.S., but there was no strong support among the people, at large, to abolish the practice. It is true that the Republican Party considered Emancipation a goal, but there is no evidence that they would have ever had the power to implement that goal had not the Democrats fractured over the issue of secession and had not a multi-party, multi-split presidential race not handed the Republicans the presidency in 1860. Had the Democrats not split asunder under Douglas, that party might have stayed in power for an additional four, eight, or twelve years, allowing slavery to exist for at least similar lengths of time.
Instead, the Democrats split on the issue. The Southern states made Lincoln’s election an excuse to depart the Union, citing slavery as their raison d’etre. Lincoln accepted war rather than disunion. Lincoln then declared emancipation for states in rebellion as a move to eliminate the anti-slave nations of Britain, France, and Spain from interfering in the war. Finally, the much reduced Congress, having just fought a war against proponents of slavery, decided to eliminate it from the nation and the “remaining states,” with a similar attitude, supported that effort.

258

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
No. It’s just the way things work out. Mexicans and Canadians live closer to the U.S. than anybody else so they have a better chance of making their way here. They’re also the countries whose economies are most closely intertwined with ours – even before NAFTA – so it’s not unfitting. But if Laotians really, really want to come to the U.S., they’ll find a way.

In any case, why is a predominance of Mexican immigrants an undesirable thing for the U.S.?
[/QUOTE]

I think a large wave of any one group is undesireable.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The people with the best chances of immigrating to the UK, if they want to, are:

  1. The Irish

  2. Citizens of Commonwealth countries

  3. Continental Europeans

Is that in any way unfair to the rest of the world?
[/QUOTE]

There are threee issue at play here. They are: fairness, proximity, and ease of assimilation.

I think we’d both agree that fairness is something we should actively seek. That the more fair we can make our policy the better.

Proximity is accidental. It is also real. I agree that Mexico’s proximity to us gives us a vested interest in the country’s well-being. So I can see how we might want to help the country be healthier, but I don’t see why that extends to us wanting to give them preference as far as moving here and becoming citizens. I do think that their proximity offers opportunities that countries from afar do not have, and that is the possibility for realtionships for seasonal work.

Ease of assimilation is something that shold be taken into account, but it is not a factor that outweighs the others. However, it does become more important when the number of immigrants being considered is very large. I would be very willing to ignore this completely if we could slow the number of immigrants to a point that their assimilation would be much quicker and fuller.

Back to your other question. I think we need to acknowledge the fact that we have a very large number of people here from one culture (yes, I’m lumping all hispanics together for right now) that, aside from their illegality, werenot part of a planned immigration. I would immediately do four basic things:

  1. Secure the border. The more people that sneak in the worse the problem (to whatever degree you see it as a problem) gets. also, hire more INS agebnts to deport those in violation of their visas.
  2. Hire more people to go after employers, which is part of…
  3. Encourage as much voluntary removal as possible. For instance, in addition to reducing the lure of jobs, on a certain date (Jan. 1?) close schools to children of all illegals, no in-state tuition, fingerprint everyone seeking medical care for the purposes of adding it on to a tab that stays with them forever, etc.
  4. Make it easier to come here legally, with speciall fast-track status for those who self-deport. I’d also start a legal Seasonal Worker program where someone can come here for 6 or 8 months at a time.

This would be done to stop the influx and to help correct for the imbalance of imimgrants (as I said, leaving their illegality aside). To the degree this is successful I would put restrictions on immigrants from over represented nations, until the more of a balance is reached.

In very broad strokes that’s what I would do. I hope this doesn’t turn into a hijack about immigration policy, but I did want to answer your question.

259

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I know that some posters are averse to actually posting facts or citing them, but here are the dates for abolition in the Western World:

1807, Britain and the United States outlawed the African slave trade.

1821 gradual abolition in Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela
1823 Chile agreed to emancipate its slaves.
1829 Mexico abolished slavery (one of the reason that Texas wanted to be independent: to keep its American slaves in bondage).
1833, Britain emancipated 780,000
1848, Denmark and France freed slaves in their colonial empires.
1863 Surinam and other Dutch New World colonies

1865 United States (but only because it was forced by the political expediency of the Civil War)

1886 Cuba
1888 Brazil
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=81

And from this page:
1761 Slavery abolished in mainland Portugal
1787 Foundation of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade
1794 Slavery abolished in French Colonies
1802 Slavery reintroduced in French Colonies
1803 Slave trading abolished in Denmark
1807 Slave trading abolished by Britain and United States
1811 Slavery abolished in Spain and Spanish Colonies (violently opposed in Cuba and unenforced)
1813 Slave trading abolished by Sweden
1814 Slave trading abolished by The Netherlands
1817 Slave trading abolished by France (not effective until 1826)
1819 Slave trading abolished north of the equator by Portugal
1820 Slave trading abolished by Spain
1834 Slavery abolished in British Colonies (but slaves apprenticed until 1838)
1842 Slaves freed in Uruguay
1843 Slaves freed in Argentina
1843 Slavery abolished in Swedish Colonies
1848 Slavery abolished in French and Danish Colonies
1851 Slave trading abolished by Brazil
1854 Slavery abolished in Peru
1858 Slavery abolished in Portuguese Colonies (but slaves apprenticed for 20 years)
1861 Slavery abolished in Dutch Colonies in Caribbean

1865 Slavery abolished in the United States

1870 Slavery abolished in Cuba
1888 Slavery abolished in Brazil
So, the U.S. was one of the very last Western Nations to abolish slavery and was not “in the lead in abolishing slavery,” anywhere (a desire to confuse factoids with history, notwithstanding).
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the list. I tried to find one like it, but I just don’t have the time or knowledge to pull that one up. I was thinking that the US ought to get credit for 1789 for the provision in the Constitution abolishing the slave trade. If the portugese colonies get credit for freeing the slaves in 1858, but didn’t let them go until 20years later, I think you could do the same for the US. That would put the US near the top of the list in getting rid of slave trading. The argument was whether or not the US was doing similar things that most others were doing. All of the countries with few exeptions abolished slavery within the span of 30 years or roughly well within the lifespan of people of that time. The US also did not have the majority of the slaves in the Western Hemisphere either according to what I saw in wikipedia.

Also some of the dates are a bit off by a year or two, but that is quibbling. The US Emancipation Proclamation was 1863, and the 13th amendment was 1865 by which time the Civil war was over and was not done for the reason of the war. The Proclamation was done for that reason, but not the amendment.

260

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Not necessarily noble, perhaps practical.

Only Cuba raised as much resistance to abolition. The Spanish provinces were nominally rendered “free states” in 1811, under Spain, and they tended to drag their feet regarding abolition, yet, with the exception of Cuba, every one of them had abolished slavery prior to 1830.

The point of the comment regarding the U.S. was that had the South not forced the issue, it is quite possible that the U.S. would have continued to permit slavery for many years subsequent to 1865, making randyjet’s absurd claim tha the U.S. was a “leader” in emancipation even more risible. There was an abolitionist movement in the U.S., but there was no strong support among the people, at large, to abolish the practice. It is true that the Republican Party considered Emancipation a goal, but there is no evidence that they would have ever had the power to implement that goal had not the Democrats fractured over the issue of secession and had not a multi-party, multi-split presidential race not handed the Republicans the presidency in 1860. Had the Democrats not split asunder under Douglas, that party might have stayed in power for an additional four, eight, or twelve years, allowing slavery to exist for at least similar lengths of time.
Instead, the Democrats split on the issue. The Southern states made Lincoln’s election an excuse to depart the Union, citing slavery as their raison d’etre. Lincoln accepted war rather than disunion. Lincoln then declared emancipation for states in rebellion as a move to eliminate the anti-slave nations of Britain, France, and Spain from interfering in the war. Finally, the much reduced Congress, having just fought a war against proponents of slavery, decided to eliminate it from the nation and the “remaining states,” with a similar attitude, supported that effort.
[/QUOTE]

I think you missed the point of my post. It was not that the commentary you added was incorrect, it was the fact that it was added. (But thanks for the bit about the move to exclude Britain, France, and Spain from the war. I didn’t know that.) My point was that by excluding the motivations of all the other countries, you presented, albeit unintentionally, a version of history that I’d guess is skewed.

In minor defense of randyjet’s point, I think the U.S. does deserve credit for taking the idea of human equality and bringing it to the fore with the D of I. While were unable to live up to those noble ideas immediately, the fact that we announced to the world that they were sacred and inalienable is significant. We took a philosophical idea(l) and gave it formal recognition. Without that, I’m not sure how quick the West would have abolished the practice.

Also, I’m not sure precisely what his original statement was, but if you take the whole world into account, not just the West, the picture changes somewhat. The East African slave trade, not to mention that of Asia, continued well after the U.S. had left it behind.