What should be done about illegal immigration?

It didn't take much to become a "legal" immigrant at Ellis Island. All one had to do is appear healthy and pass the then available tests for Tuberculosis. The "processing" was swift and those that passed were quickly left on their own in the big cities. They weren't particularly lawful either. Crime in New York and other eastern cities was dominated by recent immigrants in sequence - Germans, Irish, Jews, Italians, etc. Many groups of immigrants were also active politically - Tammany Hall in New York was dominated by the Irish, and later it was replaced by a more heterogeneous sequence of WASP, Italian, Black and later Jewish political leaders.

On the West coast things were much the same. For a long time crime and politics in San Francisco were dominated by the "robber barons" who owned the railroads and banks and, as well, by the organized Chinese, Italian, and Irish communities.

Not all of the early immigrants were legal either. My mother's family left Ireland after the revolution during the civil war in the 1920s. By then we had quotas, but Irishmen in a hurry (for various reasons) could enter Canada freely, and count on later sneaking across the border at Detroit or Buffalo. My mother, then a four year old girl, entered the U.S. along with parents, brothers & sisters at night in a small boat across the Detroit river. Overall her many progeny have done rather well for themselves, and the country, I might add.

We have only ourselves to blame for our lax management of our southern border and allowing the organized, efficient processing of immigrants of an earlier age to lapse. The motivations of Central American and other immigrants today are hardly different from those of the Europeans and Asians who preceded them.

0 Replies

So George, are you suggesting that we turn a blind eye and let it happen with impunity now?

0 Replies

No. I think we should set up a system for efficiently screening and processing candidates for immigration at our southern border. We should also set up and manage a guest worker program. After these two systems are in place (something that shouldn't take long) we should announce a screening program for all unregistered illegal residents. Those without significant criminal records should be processed as residents & candidate citizens: others should be promptly expelled.

The real question is, why haven't we done thius already?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

No. I think we should set up a system for efficiently screening and processing candidates for immigration at our southern border. We should also set up and manage a guest worker program. After these two systems are in place (something that shouldn't take long) we should announce a screening program for all unregistered illegal residents. Those without significant criminal records should be processed as residents & candidate citizens: others should be promptly expelled.

The real question is, why haven't we done thius already?

Because we have elected a bunch of Girlymen and wimps?

Do you think there should be any quotas at all? How many people can we expect to assimilate and make into good Americans do you think? Or just take everybody who wants to be here if they qualify?

0 Replies

Call them what you will. This is an issue with few net short-term positives for any of our self-serving politicians.

Quotas are OK by me, as long as they meet a realistic part of the demand.

All of this is unfortunate because, in many ways immigrants have long been the unique fuel of our economic and social systems. They keep us young and competitive as a country, and, so far, free of the stagnation that so infects Europe.

My seat mate on a flight from Chicago to San Francisco last week was a Korean gentleman who owns two dry cleaning establishments on the north side of Chicago. He was an intelligent and cultivated, but uneducated man who had built these businesses himself, with no help from anyone. During our conversation it came out that his oldest son had just graduated from the University of Michigan, and that a younger son and daughter are currently studying in Purdue and Wellesley respectively. These people are the salt of the earth and we need as many of them as will come.

0 Replies

george

I love you and want to have your baby.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Thomas
Main Entry: slav·ery
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'slA-v(&-)re
1 : DRUDGERY , TOIL
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding

By the very broad definition you highlight here, closing the border won't free the prospective immigrants from slavery. They are still submitted to the dominating influence of the US Department of Homeland Security. So, by this definition, they are slaves. In addition to that, they are slaves to gravity, appetite, and libido, all of which are "dominating influences". Under Websters definition #2, almost anything can be called a new form of slavery, which voids your statement of meaning. I'll let this point drop.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I need other American workers to continue paying into the system on which I rely in order to live.

America has a lot of problems. A dearth of people paying into its system isn't one of them, and never has been.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It's a matter of practicality, not morality.

That is false. The survival of governments in the US as tax-receiving entities is a non-matter of practicality. I dare you to name three reputable economists or sociologists who think this is a practical issue.

I respectfully submit that you are making up a practical strawman problem to shirk the deeply flawed morality of your position here. By the statements you just made, you just don't seem to hold the truth to be self-evident that Americans and non-Americans are created equal. You don't seem to believe Americans and non-Americans alike are endowed with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (In particular, you don't believe foreigners should have the liberty to make contracts with Americans on terms you disapprove of.) Finally, you don't believe that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights. Instead, you call upon your own government to trample on the rights of non-Americans in order to enrich Americans.

I repeat: The practical problem that you say protectionism solves is a non-issue. You are making it up in order to promulgate an America-first attitude. This attitude is morally equivalent to the Bush administration's arrogance toward the rest of the world. The only difference between your bigotry and Bush's is that you have sprayed blue partisan color onto it.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Call them what you will. This is an issue with few net short-term positives for any of our self-serving politicians.

Quotas are OK by me, as long as they meet a realistic part of the demand.

All of this is unfortunate because, in many ways immigrants have long been the unique fuel of our economic and social systems. They keep us young and competitive as a country, and, so far, free of the stagnation that so infects Europe.

My seat mate on a flight from Chicago to San Francisco last week was a Korean gentleman who owns two dry cleaning establishments on the north side of Chicago. He was an intelligent and cultivated, but uneducated man who had built these businesses himself, with no help from anyone. During our conversation it came out that his oldest son had just graduated from the University of Michigan, and that a younger son and daughter are currently studying in Purdue and Wellesley respectively. These people are the salt of the earth and we need as many of them as will come.

No quarrel from me there. When I was in highschool, I was drafted to play in a small brass ensemble providing music for a new citizen swearing in ceremony. I still remember that occasion and I was positioned to be able to see the expressions on the faces (and the tears in the eyes) of those taking their oath of citizenship. It was a moving experience and perhaps prophetic because twenty years later I was teaching citizenship classes for new immigrants and did that for five years. I attended all their swearing in ceremonies too and each was just as moving.

(I wonder. . .do they still having the swearing in ceremonies?)

But again, it is not these wonderful salt of the earth people that anybody is objecting to. I hope you know that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But again, it is not these wonderful salt of the earth people that anybody is objecting to. I hope you know that.

How do you feel about George's Irish grandparents immigrating illegally by boat over the Detroit river? They seem to have been of the salt-of-the-Earth type, except for the way they immigrated. Are you objecting to them?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
But again, it is not these wonderful salt of the earth people that anybody is objecting to. I hope you know that.

How do you feel about George's Irish grandparents immigrating illegally by boat over the Detroit river? They seem to have been of the salt-of-the-Earth type, except for the way they immigrated. Are you objecting to them?

I probably have a few ancesters out there who did the same. I have one nephew by marriage whose family (including him) received amnesty under Reagan and then completed the process for citizenship. They're all good, decent hard working people that I'm proud to be a shirttail relative to. There wouldn't be a problem if everybody sneaking into the country illegally were salt of the earth types, now would there? We obviously need more salt of the earth people to come who want to be Americans and all that means.

The fact is that everybody sneaking in illegally aren't salt of the earth types, however, and especially in our post-9/11 world it only makes sense that we be able to identify and deal appropriately with those. And however hard hearted it seems, we are no longer populating the vast prairies and settling the wild and woolly west and our population passed the 300 million mark this summer. There is a limit to how many people any nation can take in and assimilate into their economic and cultural systems without diminishing the quality of life for everybody.

It only makes sense to do whatever is necessary to ensure that those who come to the United States now are invited and welcomed.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There wouldn't be a problem if everybody sneaking into the country illegally were salt of the earth types, now would there? We obviously need more salt of the earth people to come who want to be Americans and all that means.

I suppose Cycloptichorn and au disagree with that -- because many salt-of-the-earth immigrants would end up compete with unskilled resident Americans, lowering their wages. Are you saying this is not part of the problem for you?

Foxfyre wrote:

The fact is that everybody sneaking in illegally aren't salt of the earth types, however, and especially in our post-9/11 world it only makes sense that we be able to identify and deal appropriately with those.

Fair enough. I have no problem requiring from every applicant to an immigration visa a printout of their criminal record, if their country provide keeps criminal records. (I believe that's the case in Mexico, though I could be wrong.)

Foxfyre wrote:

And however hard hearted it seems, we are no longer populating the vast prairies and settling the wild and woolly west and our population passed the 300 million mark this summer. There is a limit to how many people any nation can take in and assimilate into their economic and cultural systems without diminishing the quality of life for everybody.

That's probably true, but America isn't anywhere near this limit. For example, every time I fly over the Great Plains, I'm stunned by how empty they are. America could easily take another 300 immigrants without significant crowding.

0 Replies

Presuming you mean 300m Thomas I don't think the word "easily" is quite the right one. Not in the foreseeable future at least.

There are a few logistical problems if they are all to have their rights.

They look like they are breeding them themselves at a manageable pace.

What time scale have you in mind?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Presuming you mean 300m Thomas I don't think the word "easily" is quite the right one. Not in the foreseeable future at least.

You're right, I should have provided a timeschale. Let's say 300 million over the next century.

0 Replies

Quote:

Instead, you call upon your own government to trample on the rights of non-Americans in order to enrich Americans.

My, that was rather shrill, Thomas; I knew mentioning Tariffs would get you in a tizzy.

I would remind you that my government isn't and shouldn't be in the business of providing nor protecting rights of non-citizens.

I don't deny that non-US citizens have rights, but I do deny that it is the duty or responsibility of the US government to protect those rights.

There is no inherent right to trade without tariffs or fees, btw. And I don't like how callously you threw aside my 'self-interest' argument; I don't care if modern economists aren't concerned about keeping jobs in America or not, it's the way I feel about it; and not because I think badly or poorly or want to, what was it, 'trample someone's rights;' but becuse I'd rather give my $100 that I spend on new patio furniture to the metalsmith who lives down the street from me, than to some factory in china.

Supports the local economy and all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There wouldn't be a problem if everybody sneaking into the country illegally were salt of the earth types, now would there? We obviously need more salt of the earth people to come who want to be Americans and all that means.

I suppose Cycloptichorn and au disagree with that -- because many salt-of-the-earth immigrants would end up compete with unskilled resident Americans, lowering their wages. Are you saying this is not part of the problem for you?.

Sure. I see it as a problem when unscrupulous employers exploit the illegals with substandard wages and then compete with employers who are paying a decent wage. Many illegals here are paid on a 'piece' basis--they get so much for a job and thus many are working below minimum wage. (I suspect the employer then falsifies the actual number of hours worked in case they get a wage/hour audit.) The workers cannot complain without risk of deportation and the unscrupulous employer is in a position to underbid just about anybody else for available work.

Otherwise the general laws of supply and demand work just fine. New immigrants (or anybody else) who take the lowest paying, grubbyest jobs provide a needed service and can work themselves into more rewarding income and working conditions. I don't have any problem at all with that.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The fact is that everybody sneaking in illegally aren't salt of the earth types, however, and especially in our post-9/11 world it only makes sense that we be able to identify and deal appropriately with those.

Fair enough. I have no problem requiring from every applicant to an immigration visa a printout of their criminal record, if their country provide keeps criminal records. (I believe that's the case in Mexico, though I could be wrong.)

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And however hard hearted it seems, we are no longer populating the vast prairies and settling the wild and woolly west and our population passed the 300 million mark this summer. There is a limit to how many people any nation can take in and assimilate into their economic and cultural systems without diminishing the quality of life for everybody.

That's probably true, but America isn't anywhere near this limit. For example, every time I fly over the Great Plains, I'm stunned by how empty they are. America could easily take another 300 immigrants without significant crowding.

[/QUOTE]
They are empty because of the lack of available water or resources to create jobs to sustain large populations. Small town America has been steadily declining over the last half century as, due to automation, it is able to support fewer and fewer people. My nephew for instance has a cattle ranch in southwestern New Mexico. It spans more than 100 square miles of owned and leased land and it can support 300 head of cattle in wet years; fewer in dry years. A staff of six (all family members) can manage the entire operation quite handily.

I lived in Kansas for a number of years where the primary industry is agriculture with large farms or ranches requiring minimal hands to cultivate, plant, and harvest. Most of the largest towns are fairly widely spaced out and are at the most 30 or 40 thousand folks and growing very slowly. Most are much smaller and declining. Wichita and Kansas City where the only international airports and major industry are located are good sized cities but the only large cities in a pretty good sized state.

New Mexico is all alpine forests and desert with much of the land virtually uninhabitable and 100 miles of nothing between towns is not that unusual out here. We are the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and about half of our 1.3 million population live within 60 miles of Albuquerque where the one international airport is located.

There is no way our empty spaces out here would support another 100 million people, let alone 300 million. And the cities become more congested and frustrating year by year.

How many of those proposed 300 million immigrants do you think would fit into Germany's culture and economy right now?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

How many of those proposed 300 million immigrants do you think would fit into Germany's culture and economy right now?

Just to give you an idea:

Quote:

Germany:
Area:
total: 357,021 sq km
land: 349,223 sq km
water: 7,798 sq km

Population:
82,422,299 (July 2006 est.)

Quote:

Feeling Crowded?
Friday, October 20, 2006

When I first got my driver's license back in 1978, the freeways in Los Angeles were practically deserted at night - a perfect test bed for a teenager figuring out how fast Mom�s car could go.

I could flout the speed limit because the population density in LA was just 6,366 people per square mile. And, in the San Fernando Valley suburbs of my childhood, I suspect it was much lower. Everything shut down at 10 PM in the Valley because there weren't enough people to keep the nightlife humming.

25 years later, the population of the United States has topped 300 million, and the population density in LA is 8006 per square mile - an increase of more than 30%. The freeways are jammed at all hours.

All this has me wondering: Is the U.S. over-crowded? Do we have room to keep growing?

Those questions have gotten a lot of attention lately, now that the population has topped 300 million. I found some of the recent reporting on population density in the U.S. a bit misleading. By comparison to Germany, the U.S. seems almost empty. The Germans pack in 598 people per square mile, while we get by with just 82. Montana alone is about the size of Germany and is empty: 6 people per square mile.

There are a lot of wide open spaces in the U.S., but not many people want to live in the Mojave Desert. And, it's awfully cold in Northern Montana. Like most other countries, Americans crowd along the coastline. The center of the country is, in fact, depopulating.

And for a very good reason, says Carl Haub of the Population Reference Bureau, "No one is going to live in western Nebraska. There are no jobs."

So what about the coasts? There, America looks far more crowded. California has 217 people per square mile and is adding 10 million people every year. If California keeps growing, in 20 years it will have the same average population density as China. Though, the Golden State will still be well below comparably sized Vietnam and its 652 people per square mile.

Congestion shows up in many ways in California and other coastal states: high home prices, rising rents and water bills, not enough land for developers. But the most dramatic stat is the amount of time Americans are spending on the road. A recent report indicates one of the fastest growing segments of commuters hits the road at 5 AM to beat the traffic. The Texas Transportation Institute now says 51 metro areas are congested, compared to five in 1982. Today's rush hour travelers are tied up in traffic for 47 hours - more than two and a half times the time spent in traffic 25 years ago.

But is density all bad? I don't think so. The San Fernando Valley I grew up in had lots of space, but nothing to do. There were a few book stores, not many restaurants, and. . .you get the idea. That's all changed now. As population densities rise, a city or suburb is able to support a wider array of businesses and services. Simply put, there is much more life in the San Fernando Valley now.

Where's the limit to growth in this country? The best place to get the answer may be New Jersey. It is the most crowded state in the nation with 1134 people per square mile. By comparison, China's most populous province, Guangdong, has 1606 people per square mile.

Is the U.S. over crowded? If you want empty freeways and quick commutes, yes. If you like interesting cities and lots to do at night, no.

0 Replies

Source for above

0 Replies

But then is there any part of Germany that does not have arable land or water or is otherwise uninhabitable?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But then is there any part of Germany that does not have arable land or water or is otherwise uninhabitable?

Since "God created the North Sea, the Frisians the dykes" even those regions have been settled .... since 1000 AD, and since 1750 the moors there.

The Alps might be a place, but I suppose, the mountain farmers wouldn't like that very much.

0 Replies

Some alternative ideas I'd like for new settlements in NM:

Besides that: the original inhabitants of your state live in deserts - if water and electricity would be supplied in settlements and not just taken away, living would be more comfortable, for everyone, even new settlers.

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know