It’s on the way. Syrian and Afghan refugees go through Turkey, jump into the Aegean on rafts, and make a quick scramble to, say, Lesvos, to seek asylum. Or they cross into Thrace and head for Bulgaria or the Greek mainland.
And there are far more displaced persons left behind.
Tides of people are amazing things. Tell me, who stopped the Magyars, or the Ostrogoths? Who stops wandering unsettled Irish or Romany today?
Relatively privileged young fools from Britain and Europe may travel to Daesh-terrorized territory to join the revolution, but so very many people leave in the other direction the hard way. I wonder what the ratio is of European-born foreign fighters to displaced persons. Maybe that should be the deal. Join Daesh, give your flat to a refugee family fleeing same.
I’m also an Irish citizen, and I think that whatever about having the “right” to keep people out, the idea that we can keep people out is being proven more and more absurd with every Mediterranean boat. That Hungarian fence is probably going to be as effective as the American one (which is to say, not very).
I’d like to entirely second your comments here, but I’d add that controlling illegal immigration is only part of the issue here. Equally important is where we set the level of legal immigration, and how much legal immigration we should want.
Europe and the US are also in somewhat different boats here, because most European countries (unlike the United States) are at least partially ethnostates, and because a large part of their immigrants are Muslims, and much harder to integrate into European society.
For what it’s worth, I’m on the hard Left, but also strongly anti-immigration.
It’s not necessary (and not practical, as you note) to physically keep them out. Just return them once they get here, and eventually most of them will stop trying.
Assimilation isn’t a magical process. It’s very difficult for first generation immigrants to assimilate, and it always has been. A few generations down the line it gets easier. But in the 21st century assimilation isn’t a predictor of success. Appalachian whites and urban blacks are part of American culture and have been for hundreds of years, and have horrifyingly bad economic outcomes. Assimilation doesn’t mean success. The economy is no longer structured so that unskilled labor can allow you to raise a family in good conditions. What that means is the first generation immigrants will be heavily ghettoized, and will pass down economic marginalization in a generational pattern not dissimilar from other non-immigrant groups of generationally poor Americans.
So, just sort of by the way, do you support New Deal or Great Society reforms to change the economic structure to share more wealth outside the ruling class, or are we supposed to pretend that there’s nothing we can do about that?
By “more assimilated,” I mean, actually treated as a legal part of society, not ducking and hiding in a sort of segregated underground existence. What is the point of that, Hyde?
Just to respond to my own thread, I have been reading the responses and trying to synthesize some of the responses. Unlike many other topics that we debate on this board, I believe that this subject will have real-world relevance possibly as soon as the upcoming Presidential election. It is like the elephant in the room that few politicians want to address in any real way but it has to be addressed through comprehensive reform in the near future because the current immigration system is a failure to almost everyone.
In my opinion, the best suggestions so far have been the demand side economic solutions - that is, hit the employers of illegal aliens with penalties that take away the benefit of hiring illegal aliens to begin with. There are many ways to do that but it doesn’t need to involve jail time or even overly punitive financial penalties. One solution could be to audit businesses that are paying workers illegally (anyone regardless of status), fine them the difference between what they really paid and what they would have had to pay if they paid legal wages all along plus a percentage on top of that (10% maybe?) to negate the benefit from ever doing it at all and pay for the investigations.
The resulting proceeds from the fine would be split between the people that were paid substandard wages illegally and the government. The beauty of this program is that it encourages self-policing because disgruntled workers paid illegally have something to gain personally if they want to leave and turn their former employer in. Employers engaging in illegal labor practices wouldn’t necessarily be bankrupted if they are caught but their gains from the practice would be negated plus some.
This puts no additional blame or legal pressure on desperate people but it would take away a large percentage of the incentives for them to immigrate illegally in the first place. The resulting decline in illegal immigration could then be used to open up much more legal immigration over time.
I would question this. How many voters are directly affected by immigration? Compare it to issues like health care or the environment which affect almost every voter. In my opinion, immigration is a minor issue that gets pumped up by some politicians because they can use it to attract xenophobic voters.
Every voter is affected by immigration to some degree and it usually has little to do with ‘xenophobia’. There are about 11.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. by most reputable counts. That is a fairly small percentage but it higher than the population of all but 7 states and slightly more than all of Georgia including the gigantic Atlanta region. It is a huge economic and social issue that also ties back to other major issues.
The question is really about sovereignty of a given nation’s borders. I already said that I believe one of the chief hallmarks of a nation is the authority to control its own borders. I don’t see how anyone can dispute that unless they are trying to take a backdoor approach to an open borders argument. The latter could possibly have some legitimacy although I don’t agree with it but it is simply bad government to allow it to happen through poor policy, ineffective enforcement and passive border osmosis. It would be much better to set up a real plan with a desired outcome and use that as a strategic strength rather than view it as an inevitable weakness in policies.
The xenophobia argument does not apply to the U.S. at least in comparison to the rest of the world. Japan has a truly xenophobic immigration model. Some European countries do to a lesser extent as well. The U.S. does not in comparison. I am of mostly UK extraction going way back. What do you think would happen if I went on vacation to England and then told them that I was never going back to the U.S. because I didn’t want to? That stunt would have me on a plane to the East Coast as fast as they could find me a seat at my own expense. Polite Canada would do the same. Don’t make the xenophobia argument unless you can back it up. Controlling borders in general isn’t the same thing as xenophobia.
The “benefit of hiring illegal aliens” is that they will perform the shitty, low-paying jobs that employers can’t hire tax-paying citizens to do at any reasonable wage. Every credible estimate of the benefit versus cost of the work done by illegal immigrants gives a significant advantage to the nation as a whole, and in the case of immigrants from Mexico and parts south, they’re often trying to escape political, social, and economic repression and corruption that is in large measure a result of US policies from decades past, including the current War on Drugs.
Genuine immigration reform–which we’ll never see in the current political climate–should include a recognition of the benefit we get from first generation immigrants in both the labor they provide and their desire to seek the economic and social betterment of their descendants, as well as the larger scope of how we deal economically and politically with nations which results in a significant portion of the population seeking to come to the US rather than foster opportunities in their native countries.
Immigration wit large is a net positive for the United States, as is fostering the economic development of other nations which will turn around and purchase medical and industrial technology as well as seek higher education in exchange for cash and real goods. Suppression of immigration and repression of foreign governments on the theory that developing nations represent an economic and political threat, on the other hand, is a losing game played by a nation fearful of losing premier status on the world stage; witness the British Empire and the Soviet Union.
There’s a big difference between being affected directly (which is what I said) and being affected to some degree (which is what you said). How many people are affected directly - or at least enough that they’re going to base the way they vote in a presidential election on the issue? Especially when you factor in that the illegal immigrants themselves can’t vote.
The biggest group of voters directly affected by the issue are the people who employ illegal immigrants. And they obviously has no incentive to cut off the source of their workers. Conversely, they’d probably also oppose legalizing these workers. Most of them probably like the status quo of having a pool of workers who can be pressured into low wages and poor working conditions by their illegal status.
But I stand by what I said - for most voters, any changes in immigration policies are not going to have a significant real impact on their lives.
I agree with you. Lots of countries have xenophobic policies on immigration. But that doesn’t mean we should follow their example.
This is the United States. We became a great nation because we rejected xenophobia and welcomed immigrants. We took in people from every other country in the world and made a single nation out of them.
I have to say I like the plan well enough to vote for this lunatic. Now as a practical matter, the US and global elites are in love with cheap, docile labor and will never allow any of the provisions of Trump’s plan to be enacted. I would go as far as to say that if Trump gets closer to the nomination, his personal safety is in danger.
No they won’t. For heaven’s sake, we’re talking about people desperate enough to get on overcrowded leaky boats or crawl through deserts with snipers looking out for them. In some parts of the world, if they’re caught they’re at risk of literal torture and that doesn’t stop them. The idea that there is a security-based solution is utter fantasy.
Mexico needs us more than we need them. They either play by our rules or do without our trade and cooperation. They really have no other choice. It’s our business and corporate elites that are the problem. They are greedy and insular; they prefer docile immigrants to working class white and black folks.
I’m pretty sure no one is proposing shutting down the airports or building a wall with Canada What’s your take on the fence built in Israel to prevent African asylum seekers?
Kenya appears to be building a wall too, to secure the border with Somalia to keep out militants and immigrants.
What’s your take on the fence built in Israel to