Oddly enough, according to you, entitlement is exactly what it means to be American.

Eh, nobody's logic is flawless. Least of all mine. I'll take your word for most of what's been said. But I will clarify what I mean't to say.

Yes, I know. Which is why I said "other obligations". I'm not giving primacy to either or.

My overall point was that calling up reservists has a huge political cost attached to it that the government would probably not be willing to take. For you, it might not seem like an issue. But for them it is. They need to be re-elected.

If this is true, then why have a inadequately equipped border guard in the first place? What's going to be the bigger waste of money? If the National Guard is fully capable of managing the border then so be it. Sure, the Border Guard can help the National Guard but according to you they can't compare in the level of training and equipment. I don't see much point in keeping them around if this is true.

Possibly, but it's entirely pro-capitalist. If you think business interests are not apart of this particular debate you're wrong. This is what is driving a wedge in the Republican Party at probably the worse possible time.

Here's the deal though; dumping toxic waste in a close body of water adversing effecting the wildlife and probably my drinking water is much different then a few million illegal immigrants crossing the border. One of these situations is probably going to cause cancer at some point in my life. Possibly other people as well. The other means I'll just continue to have lowest of the low prices at Wal-Mart.

But two people can play this game. "As long as these immigrants aren't coming here to chop down Oregon's trees; I'm okay with it!".

Quit being so self-righteous. It's not like you haven't broken a law or two in your lifetime. Nobody drives the exact speed limit posted.

It's not like every law that has been passed or upheld has been fair or just for all parties concerned. If it was there wouldn't be a huge debate surrounding immigration.

Are you saying that no form of entitlement should be passed down from parents to their children? By logical extension of your rationale here, one could make a case against inheritance of any kind.

The world is unfair, and some people are given a harder role in life than others. Regardless of whether the United States opens her borders or not, this fact will not change. Now, maybe it is a valid concern that immigration policies for the United States are too rigid; I cannot say for certain. However, I suspect that the United States' immigration policies are no more rigid than the rest of the world's. Rather than our policies being unfair, I think what really gets under people's skin is what you just said: that the United States is filled with a bunch of people who didn't earn their comfortable lifestyle, and that it therefore is perfectly fair for others who are less fortunate to resort to illegal means if necessary to get their piece of the pie.

Inheritance being something that is passed from one person to another, at the giver's discretion is a little different. You aren't entitled to shit, your parents may or may not decide to pass their stuff on to you.

Still amazed at how a 'slippery slope' can be found regarding just about any topic.

It is not a slippery slope. As you say, the parents choose what to give their children as their inheritance. So, too, does society as a whole, through its government and its laws, decide what to give those who are born within its confines--which includes granting default citizenship.

And I'm still amazed at how people seem to disregard the fact that it isn't just the United States that has immigration policies.

We have overly restrictive policies, when in reality we benefit from from trememndously from immigration. Our farm business would come to a screeching halt if it was not for immigrants. Our house-building business would be seriously hurt. Do I even need to talk about landscaping or house-cleaning?

Also, it is not like immgrants are stealing those jobs from anyone: recently I heard on NPR that immigrants instead HELP the economy by making services more acceptable. American house cleaners used to charge as much as double what current immigrants do, which meant that very few people could afford their services. Now, since immigrants offer the service, many more people can afford to have their houses cleaned, increasing the amount of money spent.


I think what hurts this argument most is the generalized view that sheltered Americans have of immigrants. Immigrants are nothing more than people fleeing corupt governments in order to find decent, humane jobs. They only want to clean your shit and cook your food, it's not like they are out there for world domination.

Let's face facts. Most of this "they're breaking our rules and taking our taxes" bullshit is just pissweak excuses to mask supressed racism and nationalism.

America has pretty much no welfare to speak of anyway, what can they even take from you guys? The Americans I live with gawk and vocalise their envy whenever I detail benefits I receive simply for being Australian.

Except for Medicare, Medicaid, FICA (food stamps), Section 8 housing, oh, and of course, the biggest money pit ever devised - Social Security.

The assimilation issue is stupid. Is it a process or a status? What kinds of factors are more important in guaging a successful migration? The word is so lucidly defined. You cannot possibly expect immigrants, legal or not, and guest workers to cosy up from day one. I wouldn't even expect it within twelve months.

And it's not as though it won't occur anyway. There is more to assimilation with a foreign society than not flouting its laws; looking at the process solely through a legal prism is glib and unfair. Besides, once they've saved enough from years of menial labour, they too can enter into the classically American consumption manias of 15MPG transport and 25% of their bodywight weekly in grease/fat/soft-drink.

Leave that stew on the stove even longer and they'll soon assume all the unofficial benefits of genuine citizenship too, like discrimination upon other minorities, tokenisation of white people, the right to keep to their own neighbourhoods, social clubs, dress codes, ethnolects and, of course, the sustenance and direction of all the new consumer markets they've created just by being Spics (I'm sure this one could only be construed as helping your nation's economy).

Night Pheonix. America has pretty much no welfare compared to other nations.

75% of my University fees are paid outright, the remainder I pay with an interest free loan which I don't even have to pay.
I receive $150 US a week just be being a student over the age of 16. I can earn an additional $170US with paid work if I choose and receive no penalty.
Any medication I want, for anything, even something as meaningless as acne treatment, I have a 90% discount.
Catching public transport costs me 50 cents. And it lasts for three hours, I can catch any combination of ferry, train or bus, paying the one fee.

Fuck people out of work, life Infernal, receive more 3 times as much money as American waitresses do.

And we've had a conservative government cutting back on all of this for the past eleven years.
Australia isn't anywhere near are left as most of Europe too.

America has no welfare in comparison. I mean all the crap you mentioned required permanent citizenship at the minimun to even be eligable for.

Compared to what people could potentially receive in other countries, the USA is no free ride. For the most part, your illegal aliens are paying their own way.

Again, couldn't this be said for other countries as well? For instance, in Japan, non-Japanese are not given full citizenship rights, which has led to particular problems in regards to Japan's Korean community and on the whole is a problem for anyone not of Japanese descent who decides to live in Japan (source). And remember, this is for anyone living in Japan, legal or not.

But hey, let's not stop there. What about France, that shining beacon of liberal policies? Like most countries in the immediate aftermath of World War II, it welcomed in large numbers of immigrants, but with the fuel crisis of the 1970s, it reversed this policy focusing on curbing migration, unlike the United States which actually is comparitively welcoming of immigrants, with organized business and ethnic interests lobbying for expansive immigration legislation, which cannot be said for France (source). And finally, to really tie things in, as noted in the article cited, "France and the European Union today are witnessing the same perverse effects that the US experienced along its Mexican border, where new restrictions in some states only redirected flows to others, and raised the price of illegal passage."

The problem of illegal immigration is certainly not limited to the United States. Japan and Europe as a whole, as indicated above, also have restrictive policies, and in fact are, in some cases, more restrictive than the United States. Thus, this problem is not one localized to the United States by any measure. However, as the article quote indicates, the problem, while widespread, is not one that has as of yet had any clear answer. Restrictions put in place have so far only redirected the illegal flow to other, less guarded regions, which seems to suggest that a rethinking of how to guard borders more uninformally is necessary in order to adequately handle this problem.

First, we're discussing illegal immigration, not immigration as a whole.

Second, other countries have those same sorts of "undesirable" jobs. How do they manage to keep things going without a steady stream of desperate Mexicans to do the jobs for them? For that matter, how do regions of the United States lacking in illegal immigrants handle their menial tasks? I'll tell you. When no one wants to do a very necessary job for the going wage, the wage rises until someone is willing to. And someone is always willing, if the price is right. The thing about illegal immigrants is that they are more desperate for work than most, given that they aren't exactly eligable for our welfare programs what with, you know, being here illegally. So they work dirt-cheap. I guess it's cool if you own a farm or sweatshop, or want your house/yard taken care of for next to nothing, but it's inaccurate to say that these jobs would go unfilled if the illegal population just disappeared one day.

Third, as for the benefits of it lowering the cost of labor, you have to realize that this benefit also has a cost in that it raises unemployment among the working class and thus makes it more difficult for people in the lower income bracket to afford anything, let alone having someone clean their house or weed their yard (for further information, see: Rising black-Latino clash on jobs).

No one's saying that. What does concern people is that there is a massive body of people who are here illegally and who are displacing jobs from the working class (which means increased likelihood of crime). Also, with the waving of Mexican flags at recent rallies, sentiments have further deteriorated. Admit it; it's not exactly the greatest way to express a willingness to integrate into American society, now is it?

How about the restrictive policies of Mexico. Vincente porn mustache Fox isn't very tolerant to foreigners in his workers paradise, yet he sees fit to attempt to dictate what U.S. policy should be towards his people who choose to violate our laws.

http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/...ing_immigrants

Because the policies of other countries are of no concern? Since when does the US base their policies on what other countries do? Each country has their own unique political, ecconomic, and geographic issues to consider. Unless you are suggesting that US policies should try to emulate France's etc, then it's just an attempt to draw attention away from the argument at hand.

Every country's policies need to be evaluated on their own merit. The argument of pointing out that Japan's mom lets it stay up 'till 10:00 doesn't do any good. Justify your stance on it's own merit instead of trying to distract people with what may or may not be issues in other countries.

And thanks for the clarification regarding your previous point.

I mentioned other countries because it was mentioned that the United States has overly restrictive policies. My response to this is that, relatively speaking, the United States actually has less restrictive policies than many other countries. I am not suggesting that the United States base its policies on that of other countries. My point, rather, is that criticizing the United States for having harsh standards for immigration when we actually have relatively open ones is inaccurate not to mention unfair.

I might also add that, while you criticize me for not crafting my arguments on United States policy for its own merit, you have ignored several arguments that I actually made to this effect--i.e. the degredation of wages for manual labor jobs; the elimination of jobs from other working class groups.

I always assumed that those saying that the US policies are overly restrictive mean that it is more strict than is 'appropriate' for it's situation. Could be wrong.

Because I agree with these points. At least to an extent. The elimination of jobs from other working class groups just sounds like a pile of crap to me, but I can see how it makes sense to some. I can see that it increases the number of people gunning for low end jobs, but I don't see how this has any specific impact on other 'groups', or at least, it shouldn't.

And that's why I included my reasons for why I believe that it is appropriate.

As I said, mentioning other countries isn't meant to prove that immigration is a problem. It's merely a response to what I feel is a general criticism of United States policies (earlier there was criticism of the United States not having enough social programs, in addition to our immigration policies being considered unfair). Maybe it was irrelevent to the main discussion, but I'm pretty tired of people from other countries complaining about the stench of United States policies when there's plenty of sewage in their own backyards.

I linked this article before, but maybe you didn't see it. In any case, it would seem that the black community is not that happy with the state of affairs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060525/ts_csm/atension

Hmm, I'm encountering difficulty deciding on how I want to respond to this. I'll make it multiple choice.

A) What goes around, comes around.
B) Oh, you mean like we did with the Natives?
C) European colonization is a bitch, isn't it?
D) I'm sure the Inca, Mayans, Iroquoi, Blackfoot, Kumeyaay, Swazi, Zulu, Tasmanians and countless other indeginous peoples would agree with you.
E) Your mom.

Whichever sounds pithy to you.

It almost seems as if you think the American gov't should sit idly by as uncontrolled immigration drastically changes demographics, creates division because an ever-increasing portion of the population shares neither the common language, culture, or values.

It happened before during a time of lawlessness, so the laws should be ignored or changed to allow it to happen again, right? That's your argument, correct?

I believe that the aside regarding social programs was in order to refute the argument regarding immigrants entering the US for a 'free ride'. If that were the reason, then wouldn't it make more sense for them to target countries like Australia instead?

The US does get a lot of flack regarding it's policies, some of it undeserved. That other countries have their own problems, again, doesn't seem relevant when the discussion is clearly centered around the US.

Yeah, read it. The issue still seems to be a larger low wage seeking population. That they chose to view it from a race specific angle doesn't mean much to me. Assuming their examples are ones that are as common as they believe, then there has to be a reason for it. Why would the employers favour hispanics over blacks?

Getting into Australia would be a bit of a problem, since the Pacific Ocean is in the way.

You keep spouting off this exact same reason as why illegal immigration should be okay, yet it makes no logical sense. What you are trying to say is that since we moved into what became the United States with no immigration laws whatsoever, and destroyed the natives here (with disease, our superior technology wouldn't have done it alone), that it should just be ok for them to walk all over us. We have a SOVEREIGN NATION now with borders to protect.

You seem to have this "eye for an eye" mentality that just DOES NOT WORK in the modern world, even ignoring the fact that this isn't even the same situation happening. We are talking about 200+ years later with an established country. Get your mind up to the present. I highly doubt you would be willing to apply this "eye for an eye" deal to any other situation, even one where it would actually apply. Although maybe I'm just reading you wrong.

Free immigration would wreck havok on any country's economy. What people are largely ignoring in this debate is the fact that EVERY country has immigration laws, but all of the sudden the USA is the big bad wolf when we want to try to do something about the lack of enforcement of those existing immigration laws.

In short: Nothing America does outside of capitulating to anything and everything is right. If America acts in its own interests in any way, it is a tyrannical, empirical state that must be stopped at all costs.

Hmm, seems that was one of the lines that needs a smiley to come across as a joke... :doh:

The bit about the illegals coming here for a free ride based on US social services was serious. The joke about them swiming to Australia was not. Sorry for any confusion.

I mean, what 'handouts' are these people supposedly given?

My point is that we don't have the same culture, language or values that the natives who lived here before us had, we took that land. We rationalize this and say it's okay, saying that it was a time of "lawlessness." Again, referring back to the belief in inherent superiority of European culture, labeling everyone else as "savage" or "uncivilized." If civility requires subjugating others to accomplish the my own narrowminded goals (whcih I exhault on a pedestal and call it "culture"), I'd rather not partake.

So what if these people don't have the same culture or language? Just because they don't communicate with YOU, at least directly, they can still function within their own social group. I guess people outside of the border states really don't realize what it is to live in a multilingual area. It's not intrusive, it's not "threatening your culture," you're all driven by some irrational fear.

The belief that immigration "drains" an economy is flawed. Yes, because of the (oh, hey, let me quote night phoenix) "bullshit protectionist policies" we have regarding labor and healthcare it can be a drain, yet still manages to produce a huge surplus due to the drop in labor costs.

They're not stealing your jobs, they're not on some bullshit cultural crusade, they're here to live and work in a better environment than where they came from. Again, this DOES sound oddly familiar.

And yet nothing that you say in anyway gives me any good reason as to why we should allow these people to come here en masse.