Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, you're going to have to cut-and-paste. I don't trust links here. Don't forget to get the author's name and publication in there so the mods don't yank it.
No illegal aliens aren't the same as legal immigrants. If we were to send each illegal alien back to where they came from with a bleeding heart liberal that claims it's the same thing tucked under each arm we'd be a better place.
1) eliminating illegal jobs does not mean eliminating legal jobs. Your argument implies, basically, the same, tired old Bush argument that illegals take jobs that Americans don't want. Who do you think was working in those jobs before the influx of illegal immigrants? Legal immigrants (like members of my family), unskilled American laborers, and youth.
Yes, I agree. The "Jobs American's won't do" argument is total BS. If you shut down (or levi excessive fines) on an employer for employing illegals, you will knock that employer out of business. If you don't punish them heavily enough, they'll just take their chances and keep hiring illegals. You have to make it profitable for the free-market to hire documented workers over undocumented workers. The best way to do that is to gradually make all workers documented through sealing the border/amnesty. I mean, alternately, you could levy millions in fines, but where do you think that money goes? Into the grubby little hands of politicians where they fritter it away on BS. Better to cut out the middle man and slowly steer the market away from black-market labor.
Quote:
2) I didn't ask why we should bear the burden immigrants. I asked why we should bear the burden of illegal immigrants and, to this point, I haven't heard any good reasons for that. In fact, you tend to conflate illegal and legal immigrants, when they are not the same, and when the issues and problems which ensue don't begin to compare.
Egad! We're both talking past each other on this one. We should not bear the burden of illegal immigrants. I don't want one more cent of my tax dollars going toward illegals. What's the quickest, cheapest way to stop paying for them? Make them legal.
Deporting them costs a s-load of money. Setting up some sort of workplace-enforcement task force to "dry up the jobs and make them self-deport" is fine but it costs money too and damages the economy. Documenting them and taxing them is free except for the paperwork. In fact, it might even come close to breaking even if you add a big illegal-entry fine to pay for the reams of paperwork.
Quote:
3) the myth of "we are a nation of immigrants": it's important to provide historical context. What was true and possible in 1907 is no longer true or possible.
Things are different now, true. However, I don't think that precludes the general rule that if we stop growing/changing, we (as a nation) die. Healthy immigration allows us to grow and change. Especially if we bring in educated people (my university degree proposal) and laborers (my proposal to tie immigration to labor).
Quote:
4) the most important reason why: Neither the society nor the land can sustain the level of population which will arise through illegal immigration.
This is a very important point. I cut out your examples, because I agree with you. If our population continues to expand, we will eventually farm every arable bit of land, cut down all the forests faster than they can regrow, and despoil the natural beauty of our land.
But this will probably happen anyway, whether in 100 or 1000 years.
I think we could close our borders, stop immigration, control birth rates, and stabilize into a sustainable but stagnant economic model. I think we could even keep this sort of system going for a century or two with certain social and environmental reforms. We could try to uplift the other developing nations at the same time while protecting our own economic status. Maybe, we ~700million 1st-worlders will manage to uplift the other 5billion in developing nations. Maybe we can stabilize global populations and implement sustainable industry and agriculture over the next centuries. It is within the realm of possibility, but the probabilities are quite low.
More likely, however, is that the world will reach it's carrying capacity for human beings sometime in the next few centuries. Widespread warfare and global environmental destruction will result. I think that, even should the US be able to defend it's territory and essential resources, the general quality of life for the surviving humans will be drastically reduced.
To avoid this scenario, we need to concentrate on a combination of technological and sociological solutions to the environmental problem. It is a global problem and not a local one. Protecting the US environment while disregarding others is akin to tending your tray little tray of beets while the greenhouse burns down around you. Shifting 12-20 million people out of the US to somewhere nearby is a waste of resources--just like fighting unnecessary wars, relying on individual vehicles for transport powerd by ICE engines, or flying around the country giving speeches on global warming when you could do it by teleconference and save a few pounds of JET-A from being turned into CO2, yes, I'm talking about YOU, Mr. Gore!
Quote:
5) Given the environmental and social strains on the U.S. by illegal immigrants, why are you against them returning to their own countries?
See above. I see immigration and environmental destruction as separate issues. I think we can solve environmental problems whether we allow legal/illegal immigration or not, and I do not think eliminating illegal immigration will have a significant impact on the global environment and only a temporary positive impact on the local environment.
If you would care to share ideas of how we can permanently preserve the US environment in the face of global population pressure, I'd be glad to hear it, even if it means that one of the measures necessary is to deport all the illegals.
sponger: Actually, we could go back and forth about this forever and never be able to come to a consensus. But let me just say:
1) American business will not go out of business of illegal jobs dry up. That's ridiculous. The business community makes this same threat every time they are required to follow environmental regulations, provide additional consumer information on packaging, etc. I can't believe that anybody would fall for this.
2) It will not damage the economy for illegals to self-deport. You are arguing, de facto, that illegal immigration is needed for our economy, at the same time that you are arguing that all illegal immigration should stop. The absence of current illegals would require an adjustment period for American business, but they'd adjust--you betcha'.
3) the destruction of our land "will probably happen anyway" only if people are complacent about it and don't fight for it.
4) if sustainable means a "stagnant economy," then the economic structure needs to change. There's no other way. Keep going the way we go--based on unceasing "growth"--and we'll eventually cause enough environmental destruction to kill off most of the species--including ourselves--on this planet. And I'm not talking far into the future here. I'm all for capitalism, but the current capitalist framework is just one version; we need to be more creative. We MUST take consideration of the environment into every social or economic policy we create or enact. It's the only sane thing to do. In fact, there is a relatively new field of economics now called "environmental economics," which attempts to address these very real and dangerous weaknesses in current capitalist theory.
5) immigration and environmental destruction are absolutely NOT "separate issues." You can't "solve environmental problems" if you're ignoring population sustainability. I don't know why you think an additional 100 million people on a land mass already stretched to the limit will not "have a significant impact on the global environment." To be perfectly honest, that sounds like willful blindness to me. I strongly suggest--and I do NOT mean to be presumptuous or insulting here--that you educate yourself on ecological issues. It is highly dangerous for Americans--or anybody--to remain ignorant about how the biotic system works. The idea that human population is only of limited import in terms of environmental health is deeply mistaken.
6) We are not "shifting" populations from the U.S. to "somewhere nearby." Mexico is "shifting" its population and culture of poverty to the U.S!!!! We are merely "shifting" them back where they belong.
7) It's disingenous to state that "protecting the US environment while disregarding others is akin to tending your little tray of beets while the greenhouse burns down around you." As I said earlier, it is important for all developed nations to work with developing ones to save the environment, but it makes no sense to destroy our own simply because we can't save everyone else's. The work at home is important. I don't use chemicals on my lawn, because those chemicals are not filtered and eventually weaken or destroy ecosystems. Should I just not worry about it, because well, if I can't save the planet, why should I try to save my neighborhood. The all-or-nothing approach is nihilistic. The fact is: I am an American and I have an emotional and historical and cultural connection to my land. I love my land. Therefore, I do not want to see it destroyed. And I certainly don't want to see it destroyed in order to provide living space for millions of people who--excuse caps, please (don't know how to do italics)--ALREADY HAVE A COUNTRY TO LIVE IN.
We're not talking about refugees from Somalia or Darfur or Rwanda here. We're talking about people who simply want to take advantage of the U.S., and have abused and continue to abuse this nation.
Okay, this is a bit of a ramble down Cherry Lane, but I wrote it. Might as well post it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward
1) American business will not go out of business of illegal jobs dry up.
I think the bottom line is that "regulating" business to prevent illegals from working in significant numbers will do some damage to the economy. You are willing to accept the immediate damages of restructuring and the "self-deportation" of a significant part of the population while I think we can make a gradual transition without disrupting the lives of 12-20 million people.
I would add, that I believe you will just find that black market labor simply will go further underground if you try to increase enforcement without providing businesses some incentive to hire documented workers.
Quote:
2) It will not damage the economy for illegals to self-deport. You are arguing, de facto, that illegal immigration is needed for our economy, at the same time that you are arguing that all illegal immigration should stop. The absence of current illegals would require an adjustment period for American business, but they'd adjust--you betcha'.
I'm arguing that labor is needed. US citizen birth rates don't supply sufficient labor. Legal immigration doesn't currently supply sufficient labor. That's why we have an illegal immigration problem. Increase birth rates (which I DO NOT recommend), or increase legal immigration, and you'll solve your problem. If the economy was stagnant and unemployment was at 20% I'd be agreeing with you, btw. But it's not. Unemployment is at 4.6%.
Quote:
3) the destruction of our land "will probably happen anyway" only if people are complacent about it and don't fight for it.
4) if sustainable means a "stagnant economy," then the economic structure needs to change. There's no other way. Keep going the way we go--based on unceasing "growth"--and we'll eventually cause enough environmental destruction to kill off most of the species--including ourselves--on this planet. And I'm not talking far into the future here. I'm all for capitalism, but the current capitalist framework is just one version; we need to be more creative. We MUST take consideration of the environment into every social or economic policy we create or enact. It's the only sane thing to do. In fact, there is a relatively new field of economics now called "environmental economics," which attempts to address these very real and dangerous weaknesses in current capitalist theory.
The only historical examples I can think of for sustainable economies are aboriginal civilizations with very little in the way of technological advancement. I see sustainable human activity limited to our current planet as pointless--and here we may fundamentally disagree.
Throughout all of human history the trend has been expansionist. There is a massive amount of room and resources in the solar system and the universe beyond, not to mention the scientific, geological, biological, and even artistic discoveries yet to be made. It seems like a real pity for us to fail to make the leap to becoming a spacefaring species. If we don't--sustainable biosphere or no--we'll just go around in circles until the sun runs out of fuel and crisps the planet, or an unlucky comet or asteroid comes along and extinguishes the only sentient creatures in the known universe.
How does this fit with my economic/environmental proposals? After 10 millennia of recorded history, we are within a handful of centuries of being able to sustain ourselves outside of Earth's biosphere. Unfortunately, we may be even closer to doing irrepairable damage to the planet due to our rampant reproduction. Rather than concentrate now on limiting our penchant for population/territorial expansion and someday accessing extraterrestrial resources, I believe we should concentrate now on accessing those resources and someday on limiting our expansionist tendancies.
The solution is to implement what conservation we can to buy as much time as possible to focus primarily on utilizing the labor and mindpower of 6 billion human beings to access additional resources and move pollution sources outside the biosphere.
According to current trends, we have a severely short amount of time before we reach environmental limits.
Opening the destructive feedback loop of human population expansion through exterrestrial development will not be easy or happen overnight, but creating a sustainable socioeconomic balance to support 6 billion people and limit their reproduction (and convincing 6 billion individuals of all creeds to follow the model) will probably take much longer.
And all this is completely off-topic.
Bringing it back to immigration. I do not care if 12-20million of those 6 billion human beings are here or there. To waste time and resources shifting them around because of a slip of paper seems like the height of foolishness.
Quote:
5) immigration and environmental destruction are absolutely NOT "separate issues." You can't "solve environmental problems" if you're ignoring population sustainability. I don't know why you think an additional 100 million people on a land mass already stretched to the limit will not "have a significant impact on the global environment." To be perfectly honest, that sounds like willful blindness to me. I strongly suggest--and I do NOT mean to be presumptuous or insulting here--that you educate yourself on ecological issues. It is highly dangerous for Americans--or anybody--to remain ignorant about how the biotic system works. The idea that human population is only of limited import in terms of environmental health is deeply mistaken.
If they are on this land mass or one to the south, what difference does it make beyond local ecosystems? If they are here, at least there is the potential that a culture with a low reproductive rate and some environmental awareness will influence their next generation so that 100 million becomes, instead, 50 million.
Quote:
6) We are not "shifting" populations from the U.S. to "somewhere nearby." Mexico is "shifting" its population and culture of poverty to the U.S!!!! We are merely "shifting" them back where they belong.
Both migrations are pointless and unnecessary. Two environmental wrongs do not make a right in this case. If we temporarily preserve local ecosystems at the cost of foreign ecosystems, what use is that? If Mexico was another planet or under a gigantic dome, I would agree with you to a point.
Quote:
7) It's disingenous to state that "protecting the US environment while disregarding others is akin to tending your little tray of beets while the greenhouse burns down around you." As I said earlier, it is important for all developed nations to work with developing ones to save the environment, but it makes no sense to destroy our own simply because we can't save everyone else's. The work at home is important. I don't use chemicals on my lawn, because those chemicals are not filtered and eventually weaken or destroy ecosystems. Should I just not worry about it, because well, if I can't save the planet, why should I try to save my neighborhood. The all-or-nothing approach is nihilistic. The fact is: I am an American and I have an emotional and historical and cultural connection to my land. I love my land. Therefore, I do not want to see it destroyed. And I certainly don't want to see it destroyed in order to provide living space for millions of people who--excuse caps, please (don't know how to do italics)--ALREADY HAVE A COUNTRY TO LIVE IN.
I see the problem between our viewpoints. Again, I see immigrants (especially those who are highly educated--see my college green card proposal) as a labor source that can be used to help create a technological solution to the overall environmental problem. I see hobbling the economy and losing focus by sending away mean laborers and educated scientists/engineers alike, as being detrimental to finding a solution. I believe the US is the only country with the means to create and implement this solution. You believe there is no technological solution. So if you can't implement a global conservation solution (which we cannot at present) at least we can preserve our little corner until the global biosphere collapses.
My proposal isn't nihilistic, it is simply a step toward implementing a permanent solution to global problems. It is worse for our local environment--in the short term--to have more people here. However, in the long-term I believe it will be better for all ecosystems on the planet.
1) Labor is not needed. There are plenty of Americans to fullfill labor needs. They just need the education and opportunity to do it.
2) "The solution is to implement what conservation we can to buy as much time as possible to focus primarily on utilizing the labor and mindpower of 6 billion human beings to access additional resources and move pollution sources outside the biosphere.
According to current trends, we have a severely short amount of time before we reach environmental limits.
Opening the destructive feedback loop of human population expansion through exterrestrial development will not be easy or happen overnight, but creating a sustainable socioeconomic balance to support 6 billion people and limit their reproduction (and convincing 6 billion individuals of all creeds to follow the model) will probably take much longer.
And all this is completely off-topic."
This is the problem: your only focus is on what we can do to save the environment--for people--until we can utilize space expansion to offshore pollution. But we have no idea what the jettisoning of pollution extraterrestrially will do to the balance of the universe. We are not the only inhabitants of this planet. Animals call this planet home, as does the amazing array of ecosystems. It's not just about people.
Also:
"Throughout all of human history the trend has been expansionist. There is a massive amount of room and resources in the solar system and the universe beyond, not to mention the scientific, geological, biological, and even artistic discoveries yet to be made."
It doesn't matter that the trend has been expansionist. That trend has been fueled by ideology, and ideology (including our attitudes towards the planet, the universe, and other living beings who depend on us for their continuation). Until that ideology changes, we are on a fool's errand wherever we go. Your reliance on there being a "massive amount of room and resources in the solar system, etc." to exploit perfectly reflects the colonizing mindset which has gotten the earth in the mess it is now. Running off to pollute the universe is not the answer.
3) "I do not care if 12-20million of those 6 billion human beings are here or there. To waste time and resources shifting them around because of a slip of paper seems like the height of foolishness."
Perhaps you do not care. But Americans who have been forced to pay, and will continue to pay, for the care of these 12-20 million human beings who have entered our country illegally and have made unjust and unjustifiable claims on our land and our resources, do care.
4) "If they are on this land mass or one to the south, what difference does it make beyond local ecosystems? If they are here, at least there is the potential that a culture with a low reproductive rate and some environmental awareness will influence their next generation so that 100 million becomes, instead, 50 million."
And again, I ask: Why should Americans be responsible, and bear the often heavy burden, for providing for these people, when their government is perfectly capable of doing so, and when those people are perfectly capable of protesting in their own streets to make that happen? You have yet to provide one good reason why this should be so.
5) "Both migrations are pointless and unnecessary. Two environmental wrongs do not make a right in this case. If we temporarily preserve local ecosystems at the cost of foreign ecosystems, what use is that? If Mexico was another planet or under a gigantic dome, I would agree with you to a point."
I've already addressed the lack of logic in this position, but I will address it yet again. Nobody said we should temporarily preserve local ecosystems at the cost of foreign ecosystems. First: Taking care of our land doesn't "cost" any foreign ecosystem anything. In fact, such care will have a very direct and positive influence on foreign ecosystems. Just as the loss of ecosystems in the Amazon rainforest has a very detrimental effect on ecosystems everywhere else. If you understand ecology, this is basic. Population growth in any ecosystem has to be gradual in order for ecosystems to adjust. The rapid influx of people into the U.S. and out of Mexico affects both land masses in negative ways. It is, therefore--speaking ecologically--not "better for all ecosystems on the planet" to have more people here. Conversely, it is not only reasonable for the 20 million people to go home, it is essential.
6) Again, you keep conflating legal and illegal immigrants. Legal immigration is a controlled form of population increase. Illegal immigration is not. As for the belief in "a technological solution to the overall environmental problem," you are very, very deeply mistaken. This is a common human (and arrogant) response. That's what people who devised factory farms thought. We now have the bird flu as a direct result of the abuse and perversion of animals/nature. Those who believe in a "vaccine" being the least bit effective long-term, without changing the root of the problem--the abuse of nature--are caught in that same old "man/technology-can-conquer-all" mentality. The same old "solutions" keep being applied with no attention to the cause. To use technology to try and control Nature is idiotic, and a tragic legacy of the Enlightenment. Nature doesn't give a rat's ass about our technology. The planet is a living organism. We are, as far as Nature is concerned, just another organism. And when the tipping point is reached--and Nature is already giving us many warnings--when our disrespect destruction of Nature threatens the survival of the planetary organism, Nature will get rid of us. That's the way biological life functions. Nature will see us as something akin to a mutated virus, which is killing its host--and this is why Vonnegut referred to humanity (in terms of our treatment of the earth) as a type of "virus"--and will rid itself of us--probably through another virus. Balance is Nature's job. We can push the envelope in our "expansionist" hubris all we want, but in the end, "Nature bats last" (Anne Matthews).
I think you do can not see immigrants as having a positive effect on our country for various reasons. I did not intend to morally judge you based on your answer, I just wanted to know where you were coming from. I don't know if you are biased or racist, nor do I care. I want to know if you believe that Mexicans, Germans, Chinese, or whomever can make (and have made) positive contributions to our country (as well as negative ones). If you can make a good logical argument for your position, it doesn't matter if you care about skin color, creed, culture, or religion. People are allowed to think ethnocentrically if they want. That is one of the mainstream liberals' biggest mistakes; to assume that any sort of thought--even negative thought--must be stamped out. It is a part of human nature that we must deal with because we can't change it.
I absolutely believe that Mexicans, Germans, Chinese, or whomever can and have made a positive impact on America. This is exactly what America is all about! My position is pretty simple... if you want to come here, and are hoping to make some sort of positive impact, WONDERFUL! The worst impact you can make on my nation is to break its laws the moment you step foot in it. That's all. No more complicated than that.
Listen. I am a caring and compassionate person. Logistically though, there have to be limits. I take care of my family first. If my son is sick, I take him to the hospital before I would take my neighbor's son. This doesn't mean that I dislike my neighbor's son, or that I don't have empathy for him...it just means I am a man of finite resources and I have to apply them to what makes the most sense. I don't like the welfare society that has become many parts of America. Still, when my hard-earned wage is ripped from my hand by the Federal Government and applied toward roads that we all share, or schools that educate our young, or even unemployment checks that help out people that have fallen on hard times, I don't complain. We have some obligation to help each other out...it makes us civilized. If you come here illegally and don't feel the need to contribute to Medicare or pay taxes like everyone else or purchase insurance for your vehicle like I am forced to by law, and then have the AUDACITY to reap the benefits of the very system you have no respect for????????? Don't expect my gratitude. I'll pay $9 for a head of lettuce.
Then WELCOME to our little slice of the pie. I hope you've enjoyed your stay.
Cap
Thank you.
But I want to complain!
I was not treated bad at all, but living the American dream.
I was expecting worse, being from Serbia, after all tha bad media reputation in last 15 years.
I was not treated bad at all, but living the American dream.
I was expecting worse, being from Serbia, after all tha bad media reputation in last 15 years.
Terribly sorry about that. We'll be sure to treat you like crap from here on out.
Just kidding!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
