Author Topic: Looks Like I have to do Your Job For you -- for inquiring small minds  (Read 20407 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
What I am saying is that if you have a legal entry system in place then any illegal entry should be prosecuted. Otherwise why have immigration law in the first place.

I am also saying that there is no inherent human right to transnational labor migration, that a sovereign nation has a right and obligation to control its borders and that right trumps the supposed right of any individual.


Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

What I am saying is that if you have a legal entry system in place then any illegal entry should be prosecuted. Otherwise why have immigration law in the first place.


Indeed. So rather than do something about a set of bad laws, just work harder on prosecuting the law breakers. Great plan. Very practical. I've sure that'll take care of everything. Oh dear, I was being sarcastic again.


I am also saying that there is no inherent human right to transnational labor migration, that a sovereign nation has a right and obligation to control its borders and that right trumps the supposed right of any individual.


The right of the nation trumps the right of the individual. Oops, it trumps the supposed right of the individual. That could cover a multitude of sins. I find your position... well, to keep things polite, let's just say I find your position troubling. Anyway, you say a sovereign nation has a right and an obligation to control its borders. So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history? Was that good or bad? What sort of control must a nation maintain to be said to be living up to its obligation? What rights does the individual actually have? Does the actual right of an individual ever trump the "right" of a nation?
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0



   Let me ask as a union member, will labor unions have any clout , leverage , barganing power, if the availibility of labor is almost infanite?

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
in term of labour union it might not be viable.
 thiers a reason macdonalds is not unionized. farm may not be viable if the labor is unionized.

computer  industry is another matter.


Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Let me ask as a union member, will labor unions have any clout , leverage , barganing power, if the availibility of labor is almost infanite?


That depends on whether or not they can convince people to join the union, I would guess. Though I doubt less restricted immigration would create a situation of nearly infinite availability of labor.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Let me ask as a union member, will labor unions have any clout , leverage , barganing power, if the availibility of labor is almost infanite?


That depends on whether or not they can convince people to join the union, I would guess. Though I doubt less restricted immigration would create a situation of nearly infinite availability of labor.

Is infanate too strong a word?

How about inexaustable?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
Anyway, you say a sovereign nation has a right and an obligation to control its borders. So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?

Seems to me immigration law now is more liberal than it ever has been.

American immigration history can be viewed in four epochs: the colonial period, the mid-nineteenth century, the turn of the twentieth, and post-1965. Each epoch brought distinct national groups - and races and ethnicities - to the United States. During the 17th century, approximately 175,000 Englishmen migrated to Colonial America.[11]  Over half of all European immigrants to Colonial America during the 17th and 18th centuries arrived as indentured servants.[12]  The mid-nineteenth century saw mainly an influx from northern Europe; the early twentieth-century mainly from Southern and Eastern Europe; post-1965 mostly from Latin America and Asia.

Historians estimate that less than 1 million immigrants ? perhaps as few as 400,000 ? crossed the Atlantic during the 17th and 18th centuries.[13] In the early years of the United States, immigration was fewer than 8,000 people a year,[14] including French refugees from the slave revolt in Haiti. After 1820, immigration gradually increased. From 1836 to 1914, over 30 million Europeans migrated to the United States.[15] The death rate on these transatlantic voyages was high; one in seven travellers died.[16]

In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law.[17]

The peak year of European immigration was in 1907 when 1,285,349 persons entered the country. By 1910, 13.5 million immigrants were living in the United States. In 1921, the Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. The 1924 Act was aimed at lowering the overall inflow and making it proportionate to the ethnicities of the people already in the U.S.[18]

Immigration patterns of the 1930s were dominated by the Great Depression, which hit the U.S. hard and lasted over ten years there. In the last prosperous year (1929), there were 279,678 immigrants recorded, but in 1933 only 23,068 came to the U.S. In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than immigrated to it. The U.S. government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands were deported against their will. Altogether about 400,000 Mexicans were repatriated.[19]

The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (the Hart-Cellar Act) abolished the system of national-origin quotas. By equalizing immigration policies, the act resulted in new immigration from non-European nations which changed the ethnic make-up of the United States.[20] While European-born immigrants accounted for nearly 60% of the total foreign-born population in 1970, they accounted for only 15% in 2000. Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970, and doubled again between 1970 and 1990.[21] In 1990, President Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990,[22] which increased legal immigration to the United States by 40%.[23] Nearly 8 million immigrants came to the United States from 2000 to 2005 ? more than in any other five-year period in the nation's history.[24] Almost half entered illegally.[25] Since 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal immigrants.[26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#History


BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
More

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
Anyway, you say a sovereign nation has a right and an obligation to control its borders. So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?

Seems to me immigration law now is more liberal than it ever has been.


So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?

No. I would say that immigration was controlled by other influence than immigration law.



Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Quote
So would you say the U.S. ignored this obligation for most of its history?

No. I would say that immigration was controlled by other influence than immigration law.


That seems a bit like trying to keep your cake and eat it too. But whatever. You've ignored the other and more fundamental questions asked, and pursuing answers would be a waste of time.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Though I doubt less restricted immigration would create a situation of nearly infinite availability of labor.

Is infanate too strong a word?

How about inexaustable?


I think you're exaggerating either way.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Though I doubt less restricted immigration would create a situation of nearly infinite availability of labor.

Is infanate too strong a word?

How about inexaustable?


I think you're exaggerating either way.


I think you are wanting more thinking time for this , Ok.
Tell me tomorrow whether there is any way for organised labor to remain relivant with a planetwide availibility of scab.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

I think you are wanting more thinking time for this , Ok.
Tell me tomorrow whether there is any way for organised labor to remain relivant with a planetwide availibility of scab.


Planetwide availability of scab? Now you're just being silly.

I'm not sure if you're making a case against immigration or against international trade.

Shall we just build impassable barriers along the border of every country and let each country live in isolation from all others? How about every state? Every city? I mean, how is the local union supposed to function if businesses can look for non-union workers in some other city? My gosh, that would just lead to chaos, death, rancid cheese, the long foretold robot uprising and the end of all human civilization. Doomed, doomed, we're all doomed!

Okay, that was laying the sarcasm on a bit thick. I admit that. Even so, this infinite/inexhaustible supply of labor objection you keep trying to press seems a bit ridiculous. If all labor in all fields of endeavor was exactly the same and all access to it was exactly the same, you might have a point. But it isn't and you don't. And I think you're smart enough to know that. But maybe you think I'm not. Or maybe there is some other actual point you're trying to make. I am quickly tiring of this little game at my expense either way. Make your point, be honest about whatever "put Prince in his place" thing this may be, or admit you're just fraking around.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--