I have a completely opposite reason to want to restrict immigration. I have little doubt it works favorably for America, that’s just the problem. The brightest and most talented people in the “third world” want nothing more than to get to America, and I certainly can’t blame them. But it ends up with us siphoning off thier best and brightest.
To grossly oversimplify: a young man who might become a doctor in Somalia will abandon his native country to become a cab driver in Akron. Good for America, perhaps, but bad for humanity.
Apu: I have noticed that this country is dangerously underpopulated.
Personally, I’d love to see the Canadian population doubled or even trebled in the next 20 years. Beyond some restrictions for physical and mental illnesses, and criminal records, I think the assimilation of immigrants should be ratcheted up.
According to this argument if someone decides that you would better “help humanity” by doing job A, then you would be prohibited from selling your labor to anyone else (i.e. chosing a different job)
I suppose it is a logically consistent argument to prohibit immigration because you think some people should be slaves, but it is not a very pretty one.
Come now. The reason a doctor drives a taxi cab is that he is restricted in his employment by the AMA which acts very much as any other union to raise wages above equilibrium, and consequently needs to limit people entering the union.
I’m a little bit stunned at this question. It just seems so obvious to me that anyone smart enough to pose the question must come to the conclusion" “of course it is good”
Here is A. He was born at GPS coordinates blah blah blah. He wants to contract with me to do certain work. A has the skills I want, and I have the working condtions and wage that will satisfy A. Here also is B. B wants to stop A and I from doing business together. B by the way was born at GPS coordinates foo bang bar. Does anybody seriously think B’s moral claim that he is justified in stopping A and I depends on the GPS coordinates specified?
Well, U.S. immigration law does partially address the “brain drain” issue. People who come on J-1 visas, which are used for academic exchangfe, research, or graduate study, in manny cases have to return to their home countries for 2 years before they can return to the U.S. in most other visa categories. The home countriy residence rule applies if you have certain professional skills which are in shortage in your home country (determined on a country-by-country basis), or if you have received U.S. or home country government funding for your U.S. program. There are waivers of the requirement, but they are very milited and difficult to obtain (for hardship, persecution, if your home country doesn’t object, or if you are supported by a few specific U.S. government agencies).
Countries with vibrant, flourishing cultures are often that way because they have a vast dynamic flow of people, each bringing their own tack on life. It’s all about FOOD. Think how much poorer life would be if we didn’t have the choice to go out for Chinese, Thai, Mexican, Italian, French, Indian or Greek food! Do you want to give that up? I certainly don’t. I can’t think of a single way that my society would benefit from drawing an imaginary line around us and saying “this our land, we will stay here and not change and put our fingers in our ears.”
Well, another argument for immigration, is that it keeps the populations growth at positive levels. More people means more people to do things, and a higher GDP, which of course makes the country getting immigrants more powerful. Also, positive population growth allows a country to avoid all the pension, and retirement problems that a country with a declining and aging population will face.
Mmmm… well then why havent India and China had the worlds largest GDPs for the last several centuries. After all, they have the worlds most populous countries. It seems to me that there is an INVERSE relation between a countries population size and the size of its economies.
True. But we are talking about population growth due to immigration, not population growth due to natural native birthrate growth.
Personally, I would give up my claim to welfare programs such as Social Security if it meant that my children and grandchildren would not become minorities in this country.
I would gladly give up going to that Mexican restaurant in town if it meant that my children were not picked on by “hispanics” in the local government school. If it meant that the Mexicans in town would stop writing graffiti on my walls. If it meant that a trip to the local Wal Mart was not like entering Tijauna. If I would stop seeing Mexican woman in their 20s in the store, speaking Spanish, with 5 kids in tow.
Yep, I would gladly give up eating Mexican food for that.
Sorry if your kids are getting picked on in a public school, but kids are going to pick on each other no matter what. I don’t think your kids would get picked on any less if every one of their classmates were a WASP.
So, let’s see:[ul][li]Many (if not most) immigrants from Mexico are here illegally, because the U.S. has restrictive immigration laws.[/li][li]Illegal Mexican immigrants are generally poor, because they have to keep a low profile to keep from getting deported. Poor people exhibit a higher incidence of criminal behavior, including vandalism.[/li][li]Illegal Mexican immigrants also have less access to education for their kids and adult education for themselves, for the same reason. Therefore, they have less opportunity to learn to speak English, and will tend to congregate together with other Spanish-speakers, thus compounding the language problem.[/ul][/li]And you want to fix this problem by making Mexican immigration even harder to obtain legally?
By the way, I don’t know where you live – but if you’re living in Texas or California, you are aware that your state used to be part of Mexico, aren’t’cha?
I don’t know if it was actually a part of Mexico. I do know that it was territory that was claimed by Mexico. It doesn’t matter in either case, being that the US fought a war over the territory, and we won it. Americans also spent their time and energy building it up. If Mexico had retained possession, it would probably look like the rest of Mexico.
Actually, I believe that most Mexican immigrants came here legally. I don’t believe it matters, however. Why would it matter whether they are legal or illegal, there is still a flood of Mexicans into this country.
Sort of putting the cart before the horse, arent you?
The reason they came here is because they are poor. I also don’t see them keeping much of a low profile, lately. In fact, it seems to me that illegals are coming here and living here with impunity. They know the cops won’t mess with them. They know if they make it past the the border, the INS won’t mess with them. When they get jobs, they know the government won’t mess with them.
Absolute bullshit. Illegal children have the same “right” to public schooling as real American kids.
The reason they don’t learn English quickly is because our government kisses their asses and panders to them. Voting materials are in Spanish. Government documents are in Spanish. Drivers licence tests are in Spanish. Not only that, but the media panders to them. I’ve got 4 Spanish language channels on my cable tv that I don’t want and didn’t even ask for. One third of the radio stations in my area broadcast in Spanish. Welfare materials are in Spanish. There are Spanish interpeters in the welfare offices.
Oh… except not. Guess that blows the simple arguments the fuck out of the water then.
Stereotype, stereotype, racial slur, stereotype… yup, all the components are there.
Kids get picked on by white kids. Some Wal Marts are full of “White Trash”. Nothing about these complaints is dependent upon the race of the people you’re complaining about. Your argument is “people suck”, and kicking everyone of a certain skin colour over one side of an imaginary line doesn’t do anything to solve THAT particular problem, does it?
I want to know what your government is doing about the “flood” of Anglo Saxons into America. To impartial observers, that’s a problem that’s completely out of control.
Yup. That’s what’s known as “Free Trade.” Nice, isn’t it. Ever heard of the North American Free Trade Agreement? That’s the same thing as Mexicans moving to America to get jobs, but designed by the rich, not the poor. Why should the rich have fewer restrictions on business transactions than the poor, eh?
So what? What makes your language better than theirs? If they can live their lives and conduct business in Spanish, why shouldn’t they? If it’s making it hard for you, well, that’s this “free trade” business again, ain’t it. Maybe the market is showing you that you need to start learning Spanish…
Hermann Cheruscan, one of the nice things about the United States is it has no national official language. People have the right to conduct business with their government in their language. While it would not be feasible to accomodate every language, the Spanish-speaking community in America is quite large and the government should accomodate them.
And another thing. You deplore poor immigrants coming to America to better their lives, but what would you do if you were born a poor peasant in Mexico? I’m sure with your understanding that the US is sacred ground where brown people aren’t wanted would compel you to stay in poverty and not seek a way out for you and your family. :rolleyes:
They might, or they might not. But even if they do have the same legal rights to public schooling, I’ll bet most of them won’t know this because they’re afraid to ask too many questions for fear of being found out as illegal aliens and deported to Mexico.
California was a Mexican territory and Mexicans were living there in 1848. I can’t believe someone would be unaware of their own state’s history. Places like much Nevada and Utah were not very effectively occupied and merely ‘claimed’. If you have a problem with recent immigrants that’s one thing, but to have the illusion that Mexican people just started coming there in 1962 - or that everyone in California with a Spanish name is a newcomer would be wrong.
Perhaps if you did some name changing - called Los Angeles “Angels City” and San Francisco “Holy Frank”, perhaps those dumb peasants wouldn’t get the crazy idea they would be ‘welcome’ there.
Cute.