But, why in the world should we want to “maintain the rough balance of the composition of the American people”? Or strive to change it, for that matter? What’s the point?
Since it is relatively hard for most Europeans to walk on water across the Atlantic, they tend to be legal immigrants who at least are screened and are given permission to come here. I cited the wikipedia site that was sent ealier which shows a huge disparity between those of Asian and Latin American origin compared to that of Europeans and Africans immigrating here. If such figures were part of any other study, it would be cited as prima facia proof of discrimintation and an order to cease would be issued to any government agency that allowed such to exist. That is the discrimination. There are hundreds of thousands of would be immigrants who wish to come here from Europe who are denied that privilege.
I have known many who had to wait years and they said that it was near impossible for them to get such permission. They considered themselves very lucky that they got in at all. I dated a British girl who only got here because she worked for a British firm. She then had a long process to get official permission to become a permanent resident and leave her job to find another. Had she just quit, she would have had to leave the US.
Right now there are quotas for each country which favor the areas described and have yeilded that result.
The point is that the balance is being changed by many means whether you like it or not. That is the fact. The questions then become numerous. The first is do we have any right to say who may or may not enter the US as immigrants? Even the UN and all other countries on earth say yes to that question. The next one is how many may enter? In our case, we have a flood of people who wish to immigrate here. So the question then becomes how many can we or should we admit? Then the question evolves to who will we admit and on what basis? We have to answer that question since it is impossible for us to accomodate all who wish to come here.
Doing nothing differently means that we will favor immigrants from Latin America and Asia over those from Europe and Africa. That is one choice that is being made now with little or no input from the American people who DO have that right to decide for themselves who may come into our country and homes. Just because immigration was used in a racist way in the past hardly means that any restriction on immigration is therefore racist. Prior to the 60s most of Africa had few if any sovereign nations and most black Americans in the south had no vote in any case. Times have indeed changed for the better on this and many other scores. That is why back then that the immigration laws prevented Africans from immigrating.
No matter how we answer these questions, any decision that we as a people make on this and other questions is moot unless we secure our borders. The question really is whether or not we as a people have the right to have our wishes as expressed at the ballot box respected? Since I support the concept of representative democracy, I do think that we have not only the right, but the duty to enfoce the laws that have been enacted. Though I am politically liberal, I don’t think such a sentiment is either liberal or consevative, just 100% American.
I made the suggestion as to continental origins for determining the quotas. I would perhaps say that the US Census should be the determing category or some other means. In any case, simply doing nothing is an action to radically alter the national make-up of the US population. Back when the Reagan amnesty was granted in 1986, this was a non-issue since the numbers were for the most part insignificant. Times do change though. We have to adapt our laws and measures to new circumstances. I have to laugh at the conservatives who slam Kerry for saying that any fence will eventually come down and he voted for the fence. I guess they expect a GREAT WALL of America to be built and last for centuries and be visible from outer space. Or that they would have prefered to keep 10 million men under arms forever after WWII. The fact is that we have to change and adjust our measures to meet the problems. They will not last forever, nor will the measures we take now last that long.
But you have provided no reason why we should engage in the racist or anti-ethnic policies you have proferred. (You have also failed to substrantiate your claim that we are discriminating against Europeans. Since you were describing legal aliens, the fact that they can’t walk across the Atlantic (any more than Asians can walk across the Pacific) is irrelevant to your actual claim that you are now avoiding.)
If you are going to set quotas, why not simply ignore all judgements based on geography or culture and simply use qualifications such as competence to perform needed tasks? Why impose any sort of cultural or geographic criterion?
Of course not. But any immigrations restrictions that discriminate among applicants based on race, ethnicity or national origin are racist by definition.
So what?! I can see the arguments for preferring educated immigrants over ignorant, skilled over unskilled, etc. But WRT race/ethnicity/national origin/religion, why can’t we just let demographic changes happen as they happen to happen? What reasons to we have to prefer any race or nationality over another, or to try to preserve (or try to alter) the current ethnic/racial makeup of our society?
I’ve read Locke. I’m actually a big fan of Locke and John Stewart Mill. We make governments in order to secure our goods. That’s pretty much the purpose of them, because in a state of nature, anything goes. Our neighbors can do anything to us, and likewise. That’s why we have the police (according to one that would follow Locke).
At what point, assuming that Mexicans are going to be injected/siphoned into our country continuously, can we start talking about annexation of Mexico? After all, we get to a point where it’d be cost-effective to absorb that nation and gain extra space.
You’d want more dollar diplomacy in Mexico? Hasn’t Mexico had enough of our culture and dollar diplomacy? (I don’t necessarily agree or disagree, just making the statement).
Citizens don’t have to recognize the boundaries that states offer. States also set the definition of what a state is and what should or shouldn’t be a “boundary”. Of course, that would be self-serving to the states. Citizens (or just people) not recognizing these borders is one of the problems that’s here. It may come down to whether or not you (that’s a rhetorical “you”) believe that states or individuals are the primary focus of government.
Jefferson also said “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.” and “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” The system as it is is flawed. That much I think we can agree on with no squabble. Why don’t we fix the system and get it configured so we can’t make these new immigrants into more productive citizens? Discussion on exactly WHAT those changes are is fodder for another thread. (Hm. Maybe it isn’t.)
As a hijack, what was so rightful about the disdain for Castro? Feel free to email me a reply if you desire, unless you wanna assist me in said hijack.
BTW, randyjet, have you read this thread?
Before the answer, I’m not going to pretend that I wouldn’t be in favor of putting up fences to keep your dogs from running amok and into city streets.
Are we also assuming that squatting is going on and that it’s widespread? What are the reasons to squat on someone else’s property?
If someone wants to squat on your property, they’ll find a way to do it no matter what. In this case, there are two paths: some form of violence/hate/fear or some form of unity/living together or symbiotically.
Did they re-open the Asian land bridge when I wasn’t looking?
There have been threads about this. Personally, I don’t see why we would want to absorb such a fucked up country. It’s rife with corruption, and offers us little. And that assumes the Mexican people would want to dissolve Mexican soverignity, which I doubt.
What are you talkiing about? From a business standpoint, I see Mexico as an opportunity. There is obviously a dearth of jobs. And there are millions of hard-working people so hungry for a better life that they risk their lives to go to the U.S. I wonder to what degree Mexico could compete with Asian countries for manufacturing jobs. Right off the bat you’d save a lot in shipping as far as time and expense.
Yes they do. States have many different laws and you have to follow the law of the state you are in, not the one you are from. And if I live in CA, I can’t just decide to pay state taxes to NV. The boundaries matter. Although I’m confused as to what your point is.
The part of the system that is broken is the one that allowed 12 million people to amass here in violation of our laws. Now if you want revolution, I’m with you (small “r”), although from the opposite side. I think we might be seeing it soon when the House gets to the immigration bill. In my opinion, the little revolution will occur in the Republican Party. Between the rampant spending and the proposing of this shamnesty, I think—hope—it will blow itself up and get back to it’s foundation.
- Communist 2. Dictator
Every country (seemingly) has an amount of corruption. Are we do accept a certain level of corruption or should we strive to rid ourselves of all of it?
Why would we want Mexico? More land, more resources. Factories built on the Mexican side of the border with no environmental controls would then be subject to US regulations again.
So if the Mexican people are ones you want into this country because of their ethic, then it boils down to power and only allowing the ones you want in when you want them in. Could power be the culprit of all these immigration problems?
Citizens will recognize the boundaries they wish to recognize. Ultimately, boundaries exist because some people choose to put them there. Some (almost always the minority) will choose to ignore these borders.
Batista, the guy in control over Cuba before Castro was a dictator as well. He was in the pocket of the United States. Does that make him better?
Also, a guy has to do a lot more than just believe in a different political ideology than I do to make him worthy of my disdain.
(why am I always the one that comes to Castro/Cuba’s defense? bleh…)
This might be worthy of more rumination than you’ve actually given it. Do you know the answer?
Try one word; Communist. We’ve supported plenty of dictators; we’ve never cared about anybody’s life or freedom, just pushing America’s version of capitalism down everyone’s throats. If that means putting someone in power who roasts and eats babies alive, we’ll do it, and never feel a moment of guilt.
Can you please—please—try, just a little, to not be so mind-numbingly predictable. Just type “Der Trihs makes comment here.” and we’ll all be able to get your point. And just think of all the time saved: typing on your end, and reading and rolling eyes on ours.
You can probably just paste it in, for even greater time savings on your end. Just think how many more threads you could…uh, enlighten…with this method.
How about you “try, just try” to not pretend we are motivated by nobility. I notice you don’t say I’m wrong; you just want me to shut up.
I’m very tired of all the hypocrisy over Castro, all the people who act like we hate Cuba because he’s a dictator while we prop them up all over the world; then people like you get all self righteous when someone points that out.
Yes, actually I do. I’ve read a few books on Cuba and know from the information cooraborated in them that Cuba and its government isn’t nearly as evil and brutal and as bad as you’d be led to believe through assumptions and propaganda.
'tis merely my cross to bear, I suppose.
You sure have some strong opinions about a country you know nothing about. Do you base all of your opinions on what you read in the American media or on the internet or do you have ANY firsthand knowledge?
I guess the main reason you would squat is because you don’t have property of your own. In my town, we unfortunately have a good number of homeless people…if they knew the cops weren’t going to roust them out, why wouldn’t they take a nap on my lawn furniture if they felt like it? Probably more comfortable than a park bench. And I have a fence, because I don’t care if you are calling it a form of violence(?), hate, or fear, I would rather not come home from work and find the guy there.
My father-in-law is from Cuba, and I can assure you that he would tell a very different story from whatever books it is that you have read.
I wonder if you need any more explanation than 12 million people having left it to find better opportunities elsewhere.