Checkpoints the borders do not leave people waiting for months years or decades for entry.
I have no problem with changing the laws. I am, in fact, in favor of simplifying them. My problem, and the only one I have stated, is people using the inconvenience of the law as an excuse to break it. Illegal immigration is a criminal act. Illegal immigrants are criminals.
Because I'm not suggesting zero attempts at security. I'm suggesting letting people get on with the business of life. A few moments getting a finger scanned is considerably less interference than waiting years for red tape to clear.
You are suggesting that the government establish security checkpoints, yet simultaneously suggesting that international travel should not be interfered with. I repeat, that is contradictory. As to the idea of quick security checks at the border, how might we implement those? Should we have an agreement with every country in the world to let us know whether an incoming alien has a history of drug-running or terrorism? We might, if we establish a reasonably working national criminal database be able to prevent previous US offenders from re-entering, but if we attempted to do that civil libertarians would have a heart attack. Look at all the whining about the Patriot Act. And how can we be expected to run a security check on an incoming foreign national in a few minutes at the border when we allow ourselves three days to check a US citizen for a gun purchase? Keeping up with our own citizens is more than we can do, and we also have a bunch of rights that protect the best and worst of us. Yet to get a job in a public school (or even in most corporations today) we would have to pass a background investigation. We can't put incoming immigrants to that kind of test, because we have no access to foreign records, except what other governments might be willing to share. What you are suggesting is making a useless gesture of security rather than having the semi-serious policy of restriction that we now have, or actually coming up with a decent border plan as we should. Security checkpoints do a little bit to stem the flow of illegal items into this country - precious little. Increasing immigration by making it increasingly easy to get into the US will increase the flow of drugs and other inappropriate items - and increase the danger from terrorists as well. It is a matter of simple math.
If we can have checkpoints, why do we need to interfere with people who are trying to find work and improve the lives of their families?
Because checkpoints are not even close to reasonable security.
Oh don't be silly. Yeah, if we opened the borders, people are still going to risk death to sneak through the desert even though they don't have to, still going to spend money on coyotes and fake IDs even though they don't have to, still make secret deals to work for cash and risk imprisonment even though they don't have to. Yeah, because they get off on the thrill of risking death and imprisonment. Got nothing to do with trying to find work and make a better life for themselves. Don't be ridiculous.
I'm not being ridiculous. You certainly are if you think that the above counter-argument had anything to do with my point. I didn't say or even imply that those same people would risk coming into the country through deserts, make secret deals or any of the other irrelevent points that you made. Obviously, you misunderstood me. I meant that people who were here to do things like run drugs, bomb discos (do we have those anymore?) or engage in other illegal activites would still be coming in, in that much easier manner, to do them. And far more would come, seeing as how any risk associated with border crossing was now eliminated. Again, simple math. And there is no reason to call me silly or ridiculous for making a point with which you disagree.
Oh good gravy, terrorists? You mean like the ones who come here on legal visas? Maybe you mean the terrorists like Timothy McVeigh? Come on, Pooch. Border security has little to do with stopping terrorists. And no, it's not suggesting anything about leaving your door unlocked. It's more like suggesting that having someone Mexican move in next door really is okay.
Now THAT is ridiculous. Yes, terrorists got here on legal visas. So let's just keep the door unlocked, since our nanny stole our silverware. FYI my son very nearly married a Mexican woman he met while on his mission in Mexico City. I would have had no problem at all with that. Your implication that my objection to illegal immigration is based on racism is insulting, inaccurate - not to mention a simplistic way of deflecting the argument. My analogy was based on the concept that locks are NOT intended to prevent theft. They are only intended to discourage it and make it more difficult to accomplish for those not deterred. The more locks and security devices you employ, the less likely you are to be robbed. That is exactly true of the border. The more physical security you employ, the less likely bad elements will enter. So my analogy is both valid and reasonable. It certainly has nothing to do with whether a Mexican lives next door. As it happens, I live in an building witf four apartments. My current neighbors are an interracial black-white couple, a family of Hispanics, and a young white couple from Philadelphia. Our downstairs neighbors used to be a Muslim family who expressed hatred of George Bush for simply announcing that we would be seeking justice immediately after 9-11 (long before we put a soldier in Afghanistan). The youngest boy bragged about how his father in India had a bomb he kept in his back yard. My kids played with this kid and his sister. If I were the xenophobic, racist person you imply, I would certainly have had an attack of apoplexy by now. But I have no problem with any of these neighbors. (Actually, I don't trust those Philadelpians.) It's a shame to see a person with the intelligence and analytical prowess you possess stoop to coloring every anti-
illegal-immigration argument as subtle racism.
Your right to free speech does not extend to silencing other people. Your right of private property does not extend to the abridgment of other people's right of private property.
Again, a false analogy. If these people want to LEGALLY obtain entry into this country, I have no problem. If you want to LEGALLY obtain private property, I have no problem with that. If you simply want to stake a claim in my back yard and then defend it as YOUR private property, we have a problem. My objecting to illegal entry does not violate anybody's rights, anymore than my keeping trespassers off of my land.
Yet we can make exceptions any time we like. See Cuban refugees.
The government chooses to allow in certain people - such as Cubans - generally because of persecution at home (or at least the possibility). Granted, some of that is political, but you are correct in saying that we can change our mind anytime. There is a whole process for that sort of thing spelled out in the Constitution. I see no problem with changing laws - or policies - based on whatever criteria seems appropriate. Those changes make previous illegal acts legal (like, say, black people eating at white people restaurants). But I do not see how that argument relates to the point it seems intended to rebut.
You're missing an important point. He has not actually violated anyone's rights. Moving to here from there is not like murder or theft. It is illegal not because it is a violation of rights but merely because there is a law. Once upon a time, a slave escaping from a plantation a criminal. Not because he had violated anyone's rights, but because he had broken a law, an unjust law. I'm not equating immigration law with slavery. I'm merely pointing out that just because there is a law does not mean that the law is right, and sometimes the right course is not to see the law enforced but to change the law. Just because there is a law does not necessarily mean we need the law.
I do not agree that he is not violating anyone's rights, because I believe security is a basic right. But I think you are missing a point. I already addressed the idea of civil disobedience to unjust laws. Border control laws are not unjust. Nobody is having their rights violated by having to follow appropriate procedures to enter this country. Whether we choose to change the law at a later date because enough people agree with you or for some other reason, the law - a perfectly legitimate one - is in effect now, and people breaking it should be subjected to the appropriate consequences. Better yet, since the consequences of illegal entry are so light now that millions of people ignore the law, better preventive measures should be taken - and stronger consequences for violation ought to be in effect.
Immoral reasons such as trying to make enough money to feed and clothe a family? Do we really need to protect ourselves from such people?
This is tiresome. When did I suggest that trying to feed your family is immoral? I mentioned several behaviors that are, by most standards, immoral behaviors. Feeding your family was not one of them.
No, I'm suggesting that international travel should be only marginally more interfered with than interstate travel. I'm saying that people find risking death and imprisonment a better alternative to coming here legally indicates there is something seriously wrong with our immigration laws. I'm saying that there is only a little more (if any) reason to interfere with people coming here to work and live and spend their money any more than there is to interfere with people doing so on merely an interstate basis.
Obviously, we disagree about that point. I think that citizens of a country ought to be allowed to move about freely in that country. As the sovereign states of this union all agree to that perception, there is no need (or right) for border checkpoints. Mexico, again, is not part of that union. As to your assertion that people willing to risk their lives to come here indicates there is something wrong with our laws, I disagree completely. it simply indicates there is something wrong with their homelands. THAT is the reason I have no interest in turning this country into theirs - not racism.
That is exactly what I'm saying. Let them do it legally. Change the law so they can do come here legally and with relative ease, rather than needing a sponsor and spending hundreds of dollars and navigating a labyrinth of red tape that would daunt Theseus and then waiting indefinitely, possibly for years. Would that really be so gorram horrible?
That was not my point. I didn't say "Make what they are doing legal." I said "Let them do it legally." I mean let them obey the laws, and if the laws make their lives inconvenient, tough. Perhaps they should start making their own nations better internally, rather than trying to burden my country. That, btw, is one side-effect reason I support a national retail tax. Those who are in the country illegally would start paying taxes - and would not get the benefit of tax rebates. I like that idea a lot. It would help pay for the education and other services our country provides. Sounds like a fair trade.
That complaint has been used since probably the ratification of the Constitution. Guess what? The country is different now than it used to be, and I don't just mean it's bigger. The country does have influences of other cultures and other traditions and other languages. And in my opinion, we are better for it. And a lot of that influence came from immigrants who came here under much less restrictive immigration policy. And the immigrants who came here made the U.S. their country not by losing who they were and adopting some pure American culture. They made the U.S. their country by contributing ideas, words, traditions, foods, et cetera they brought with them from the old country. As I've said before, America is a Melting Pot, not a Smelting Pot. And that is the way it should be.
The Irish didn't come here and suggest that Boston and New York should be ceded to Ireland. The Chinese didn't come here and suggest that ATMs and legal forms must have a Chinese translation available. My German ancestors didn't insist on being taught in German. Yes, this country is a nation of immigrants, but immigrants who came understanding that they were becoming Americans - not hyphenated-Americans. I don't object to "Little Mexico" type arrangements. There is nothing wrong with loving your cultural heritage (especially in the first generation or so) and wanting to be around people who share it. But there is something wrong with trying to turn America into Big Mexico. I'm using the Mexicans as the example, since a large portion of the illegals is from that country, but it applies to any culture. There is a growing Moslem population in America. i have no problem with that. If they start trying to vote Sharia law into our legal system, I'm going to have a problem with that.
Pooch, I do respect you. But what I see in your post is something I see in a lot of anti-open border arguments. I see a sort of righteous defense of strict border control as if there was some sort of moral ground at stake. It is there in your all-capital words of your final paragraph and in your comparisons of illegal immigration to theft and trespassing. I can respect your position, but I don't agree.
That analysis, at least, is correct. I think there IS something morally at stake. I think comparisons to theft and especially trespassing are valid. Indeed, I see no difference at all between illegal immigration and trespassing, except the border itself.
You seem to see people coming here illegally to trespass and steal and engage in criminal behavior. What I see is people risking death and imprisonment largely because they want to make some money to provide for their own and their family's wellbeing. I see people who, when they do finally get permission to come here, having to leave families behind for years because the laws and the bureaucracy just won't allow the rest of the family members to enter. I see that and feel compelled to ask why. And so far, I have not seen a single compelling argument for the why.
I do not see people coming here illegally TO trespass. I see it as an act of trespass in itself. Their motivation to come here can be work, illegal activities or escaping prosecution in their homeland - who knows? Further, I do not see all - or even most - illegals as coming here to engage in (otherwise) immoral activities. But I do see a large portion of them involved in such activities - and I suggest that increasing immigration will increase those bad elements. it's that math thing again. I agree with your point about family members gettting in. Once a person has attained legal citizenship, they should be able to bring in their immediate family - though that, too, should be contingent on those members seeking citizenship as well. That is one of the areas in which the laws should be changed.
Criminals, terrorists, disease I get told, but the facts don't play out that way as best I can tell. The vast majority of immigrants are good folks who are not terrorists, not spreading disease, and if they are criminals, only because they have broken law for which I have not yet seen a substantial justification.
That, again, is a libertarian argument taken to an extreme. You do not see a justification because you are politically biased toward very weak governments. It is a position that has merit, but I think is wrong. What we have here is not a matter of right or wrong, but perspective.
Private property protections I get told. But the laws are trampling on private property protections. The private property of the immigrant's labor, the private property of the employer, these are infringed in the name of protecting the border. And who suffers? All of us. Immigrant labor ends up working off the books, causing more danger for them. We have restricted labor pools, and employers suffer both lack of workers and customers. Off the books labor pays no taxes on income. Low or unskilled workers here natively get shafted because they can't compete with lower than minimum wage off the books workers. Who benefits? Criminals. We've established an underground back market in labor, falsified identification, et cetera. Why? Why? We don't need this. We don't benefit. We lose in the long-term.
The answer to the problems of illegals competing with legal workers, not paying taxes, etc. is simply making it harder - and more risky - for illegals to do that. You see one potential solution, I see another. We won't come to a meeting of the minds because we have a different world view.
Now some folks think rights are granted by the government or by society. I don't agree. Rights are rights and not privileges because they are something everyone has and cannot be given or taken away. (And please, let's not confuse rights with the liberty to exercise rights.) And I see the immigrants, and I think they have the same rights I do. (No, not the same privileges; citizenship, voting and the like are privileges, not rights.) So I think they should have the same basic liberty that I do. And I see the immigrants risking death to get here and imprisonment to stay here, and I really don't see people here to steal and destroy. (Yes, I know some immigrants are bad people, but so are some native born folks.) Instead, I see people who, if left alone for the most part, would, for the most part, be able to legally find work and make life better for themselves and their families. I see people who would benefit themselves and others, including us, if the law, mostly, got out of the way.
I don't quite agree with your definition of rights, but it's really a matter of semantics. You're talking, if I understand you correctly, about natural rights and recognized rights. I agree that we all have basic human rights which, whether recognized or not, are fundamental to humanity. I do not believe, however, that among those rights are disregarding laws intended to protect others - even if you do not intend to harm others personally. I believe that nations have the right to establish agreed upon borders and that other nations - as well as the individuals of those nations - have no right to violate them. There are certain rights which are, in fact, granted by government rather than endowed by nature. Among those are voting, trial by jury, receiving certain entitlements, and being protected by the government you have established. Not all governments consider these things rights and I do not consider any of those cited to be natural. But in the US, they are recognized as rights and so are. But they are also considered to be rights only to our citizens - unlike natural rights like freedom of speech or religion. Illegals come here and demand to be subject to those sorts of rights - and they shouldn't be. If it is a natural right to travel unrestricted that applies to private property as well as to borders. That just is not the case. As to your argument that border control violates the right to the "private property" of labor skills, I doubt that many would define a skill as a form of "property" - legally or semantically. Certainly a skill cannot be taken from you. But once again, even if we consider skills as property, I am n ot violating your right to have - or use - your skills by saying you may not have them on MY property without my permission.
My position for immigrants is the same as it is for most everyone else. Liberty.
If you would kindly give me your home address, I could use a little extra space. Liberty is not the same as license. I do not deny the liberty of any law-abiding person to gain legal entry and citizenship in this country (provided he is here for legal, moral purposes). That does not mean I give him license to disobey inconvenient laws in the process. I understand and respect your position, and I see much merit in the general argument that liberty should be given as liberally as possible. But I disagree with its effect. I think that a rational government must be strong enough to protect those it governs. Border protection is one area where I believe the government should be given as much leeway as possible.
