Illegal Immigration/Invasion

[PLAYER57832]

"So, again, how are we gonna ask for respect for our new looser immigration policies, when there is no respect for our policies now? What's gonna change that?"

This makes no sense (sincerely, I don't get it). Please explain.

Its not a matter of looser or more intense. We need a DIFFERENT approach.

If a certain medication is not working, the answer is not to just up the dosage, the answer is to try a different medicine or different procedure.

[shickingbrits]

"So, again, how are we gonna ask for respect for our new looser immigration policies, when there is no respect for our policies now? What's gonna change that?"

This makes no sense (sincerely, I don't get it). Please explain.

Its not a matter of looser or more intense. We need a DIFFERENT approach.

If a certain medication is not working, the answer is not to just up the dosage, the answer is to try a different medicine or different procedure.

Such as?

[PLAYER57832]

"So, again, how are we gonna ask for respect for our new looser immigration policies, when there is no respect for our policies now? What's gonna change that?"

This makes no sense (sincerely, I don't get it). Please explain.

Its not a matter of looser or more intense. We need a DIFFERENT approach.

If a certain medication is not working, the answer is not to just up the dosage, the answer is to try a different medicine or different procedure.

Such as?

Already made a few suggestions.. page back up.

Mostly, I think we need to stop making crossing the border, by itself, a criminal activity. I have proposed some taxing schemes, but that is purely in response to the heavily economic arguments.

The thing is, we need to look at ALL the issues, not just economics. For all our "history" has lauded itself as the home of immigrants, that has mostly been the case for white Anglo-Saxons. We look back on those policies as racist/xenophobic, with great justice. Yet... there IS a difference between those immigrations and many of the more recent immigrants. Ignoring those differences and pretending that the same old equation always applies is equally ignorant, even racist as out of hand excluding them.

[shickingbrits]

Ok, you want a caste system.

[PLAYER57832]

Ok, you want a caste system.

Such attitudes and responses are a big part of WHY we have a real problem here. Pretending that anyone who opposes your utterly free and open "we are all just equal... lets all just get along" is a racist a xenophobe, etc, means you know less about those people of who I am speaking than I do.

See, not everyone is happy to just go "Be American". They want to come here for economics, but not be a part of our society.. THAT is a problem, no matter how you slice it. That does segregate those groups.

The thing is, we do have room for people who just want to come here for a job.. but we cannot confuse them with people who come here to join our society, to immigrate. Treating people who come here for different reasons differently is no more unequal than giving your child gifted/interested in music more music lessons, while offering your child more gifted/interested in art more art lessons. Sometimes pretended equality is more restrictive, more unequal than honestly acknowledging differences.

[shickingbrits]

A complex bureaucratic caste system. You want children born in the US not to be American and have no assured way of paying for the bureaucracy. "We will tax them extra to pay for the bureaucracy", you may find that they have lost the shirt that they brought into the country and would be in a perpetual underclass. And of course to maintain the system, they shouldn't have access to college.

[PLAYER57832]

A complex bureaucratic caste system. You want children born in the US not to be American and have no assured way of paying for the bureaucracy. "We will tax them extra to pay for the bureaucracy", you may find that they have lost the shirt that they brought into the country and would be in a perpetual underclass. And of course to maintain the system, they shouldn't have access to college.

LOL... like I said, as long as you refuse to listen to anyone who does not agree with you, you won't learn a thing.

No, what you describe is not what I said or what would happen from what I suggested... but it IS, interestingly enough, what happens in many other countries.. countries who's citizens you say we should just accept without limits.

[shickingbrits]

A complex bureaucratic caste system. You want children born in the US not to be American and have no assured way of paying for the bureaucracy. "We will tax them extra to pay for the bureaucracy", you may find that they have lost the shirt that they brought into the country and would be in a perpetual underclass. And of course to maintain the system, they shouldn't have access to college.

LOL... like I said, as long as you refuse to listen to anyone who does not agree with you, you won't learn a thing.

No, what you describe is not what I said or what would happen from what I suggested... but it IS, interestingly enough, what happens in many other countries.. countries who's citizens you say we should just accept without limits.

LOL, I never said that. But thanks for the irony.

So let me understand what you are saying...

Children of immigrants shouldn't be granted citizenship here, but in their parents native country. What about when only one parent is an immigrant (trying to get you to say Obama shouldn't be a citizen)? How about when the country only allows citizenship by being born there (trying to get you to say we should leave people stateless or dictate terms to other countries)? What happens when we are deporting people who were bron and grew up here and don't speak their parents dialect?

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem is that no everyone wants to move here for positive reasons. Many people actually (gasp) want to do us serious harm, to benefit their home country, to "defend" their religion (not referring to people seeking to freely practice their religion, but those who see opposing religions as a threat worthy of violence), or have more personal harmful intent (whether drug dealing, extortion, or merely to make a lot of money by polluting/paying low wages, etc.).

No one is denying that all immigrants must be good.

Point is, pretending that we should just open our borders up to anyone without any adherence to responsibility won't work. That said, there is a HUGE difference between people who are just coming here to work and people coming for other reasons, including to live here permanently.

Who's pretending that everyone--regardless of criminal record or desire to work--should be allowed in place X?

The above quote. If moving is a right, then there should be no restrictions, though I will allow that we do restrict criminals within our own country, BUT the problem with immigration is that we lose those abilities and distinctions when we make the mere passage through a border to be an illegal act in itself.

Well, that's the problem with small quotes. When people support "the freedom of mobility in labor/capital," it's usually understood that they're not in favor of moving capital to Afghanistan so that it can be used to kill people (e.g. tanks and torture camps) or in favor of letting serial killers go to place X so that they can kill people (e.g. the serial killer market for labor). It's not like they drop their view on property rights when they talk about 'freedom of movement.'

Both you and Phattscotty don't seem to want to disintinguish between people's motives.

False.

Sometimes you have, but most of your comments lately do not. You lump all immigrants into one lump... only qualifying it later, when challenged. You even (as noted below) try to claim that interstate movement is somehow identical to movement between countries!

It should be understood that I don't support serial killers and other such bad people, whether or not they're immigrants or were born here.... I really didn't expect that I'd have to make this clear with you.

As a minimum, the huge influx of Mexicans and other Latinos has had a very serious impact on our society. Go all over CA and you will find people who feel their culture is being threatened or overrun by what is generalized as "Mexican" culture. In CA it is more poignant because it once was a Mexican territory. There are places where it is more common to hear Spanish than English. While that might seem OK on a culturally diverse front, it is problematic in terms of public policy and in being a unified nation.

What's so great about nationalist arguments? Unification can easily be maintained by xenophobic policies, but... why do that?

Again, you are mixing two concepts.

Politically, we need to ensure that the majority of people living here are vested in our political system. By that, I don't just mean that the majority cannot be criminals. That is a given. Its that if you have a large group without any stake, then you get even more of a "meism" society than today. JFK's "Ask not what your country can to for you, ask what you can do for your country" sounds almost like a joke today.. a joke or a tragedy. Granted, "Camelot" was a dream, a fiction that hid a lot of nastiness. Still... we saw a LOT of positive moves back then that have now been replaced by "I want MORE!". And, ironically, the ones steering that cry the most are those who benefit the absolute least. The Phattscotty's of this country cry a lot about personal freedom, utterly ignoring that they are merely puppets spouting the predominant paradigm that benefits mostly the very top few.

Immigration is not the only cause of that, but it is a big part. When teenagers going to a public high school in the US are chastised for wearing the US flag, it is significant. But more a problem is the number of times smaller incidents happen that don't reach the news. I hear about all this push to allow kids of illegal aliens to get college degrees, to obtain aid, and have to ask.. what about our kids? What about my kids and the kids of my neighbors, friends and relatives who have lived here all their lives, who's relatives have fought and died for this country.. why cannot THEY also get a college education, get loans without incurring so much debt things like buying a house, having a family would be dreams. College is supposed to open opportunities, not close them down!

Ethnically, it gets both more complex and more simple. The simple part is that if you have a people who cannot communicate, it is inherently a problem. Language is a very, very big part of that, more subtle cultural aspects matter, too.

The more complex part is that historically, we have an overriding paradigm. That paradigm is that we accept new people, who then become a part of our society, the overriding paradigm. Changes are relatively small and often subtle, or seem so at first. It is now rare to walk around California without hearing Spanish, to go to a market without seeing Mexican foods prominently displayed. I pick those superficial and relatively unimportant changes because while in and of themselves they are not negative, may even be positive, they represent a fundamental change in the population that is anything BUT minor and unimportant. I realize full well that the story of the "American Dream" and the immigrant who comes here, faces a hardscrabble road to benefit his/her children, is rather a myth. It always was partly myth, but today its more of an outright fiction or lie.

I have seen a change in CA, a significant change. That I see so much more evidence of Latino, but particularly Mexican culture, is not itself an issue, particularly given the strong roots between Mexico and CA. However, when that evidence is disdain for anything "Anglo" or "white" or even average American...then it very much IS a problem, in the US.

My generally anarcho-capitalist stance applies to all humans, so... <shrugs>. No special pleading from me, I guess.

[I'm not that concerned about people hating on other subcultures.

You should be. You should wonder WHY that hatred exists.

As long as its just a few idiots.. Ye old ignorant KKK hater, then sure. Having them is just part of freedom, the ironic part of an overriding tolerance for difference. They serve to let us know "there we do NOT want to go!" However, when you see hundreds of average people across the west, when you see large segments of "middle America" toying with ideas that broach on racism or xeonophobia... it behooves you to ask "why?". Ignoring real issue and problems is the easiest way to see them fester into real and serious problems. In this case, I honestly think we are already at that point in many places, but even if that were not true, pretending that dissatisfaction is always just about idiots not seeing the whole picture is the surest way to become a fanatic yourself.

Again with the "you support Freedom; therefore, you support KKK's murdering people and government can do anything to anyone."

<farts>

[

There ARE many who will benefit from having a divided society, but that is not average middle class America. Previous groups came here to become part of the US, to become part of the culture. This new wave often wants nothing of that. That IS something to be concerned about. "Concerned" does not mean excluding out of hand, but it does mean that there are a lot of issue to be thought out.

That's doubtful. It depends on the changes in relative prices brought about by the positive change in immigration, which affects various labor markets and thus product markets. Do you think the average middle class American has benefited on net from the minimal restrictions on interstate migration?

Interstate and international immigration are entirely different things. Only when we become one, unified, voting world will that comparison matter. Pretending otherwise is purely obtuse.

Regarding immigration, I think you need to step outside of your neat text book theories and catch phrases long enough to observe what is really and truly happening, what has happened.

It is no coincidence that the concentration upward to not just the top 1%, but even a portion of that 1%, has occurred exactly when we have gotten this huge influx of largely illegal immigrants. HOWEVER, its no where near as simple as saying "they are taking our jobs". Both you and Phattscotty have, rightfully, pointed out that immigrants historically take the jobs American citizens won't take. They work hard and make our system work. However, in recent years that has changed to illegal immigrants not just taking the low paying and unattractive jobs to taking truly skilled positions. Also, because they have traditional societal networks still, which most Americans no longer have, they are often able to pull together in ways that more long-standing Americans have not. My dad, an immigrant, got jobs in part because of the network of people from his country of birth. That network is only very marginally available to myself and my brothers. It is not really available at all to my children. Some groups still have those ties. The church of the Latter-Day Saints, for example, makes great bones to instruct members to help each other.

Why do you fail to refute the analogy?

[PLAYER57832]

The problem is that no everyone wants to move here for positive reasons. Many people actually (gasp) want to do us serious harm, to benefit their home country, to "defend" their religion (not referring to people seeking to freely practice their religion, but those who see opposing religions as a threat worthy of violence), or have more personal harmful intent (whether drug dealing, extortion, or merely to make a lot of money by polluting/paying low wages, etc.).

No one is denying that all immigrants must be good.

Point is, pretending that we should just open our borders up to anyone without any adherence to responsibility won't work. That said, there is a HUGE difference between people who are just coming here to work and people coming for other reasons, including to live here permanently.

Who's pretending that everyone--regardless of criminal record or desire to work--should be allowed in place X?

The above quote. If moving is a right, then there should be no restrictions, though I will allow that we do restrict criminals within our own country, BUT the problem with immigration is that we lose those abilities and distinctions when we make the mere passage through a border to be an illegal act in itself.

Well, that's the problem with small quotes. When people support "the freedom of mobility in labor/capital," it's usually understood that they're not in favor of moving capital to Afghanistan so that it can be used to kill people (e.g. tanks and torture camps) or in favor of letting serial killers go to place X so that they can kill people (e.g. the serial killer market for labor). It's not like they drop their view on property rights when they talk about 'freedom of movement.'

Your world is indeed extremely small... its showing.

[

[I'm not that concerned about people hating on other subcultures.

You should be. You should wonder WHY that hatred exists.

As long as its just a few idiots.. Ye old ignorant KKK hater, then sure. Having them is just part of freedom, the ironic part of an overriding tolerance for difference. They serve to let us know "there we do NOT want to go!" However, when you see hundreds of average people across the west, when you see large segments of "middle America" toying with ideas that broach on racism or xeonophobia... it behooves you to ask "why?". Ignoring real issue and problems is the easiest way to see them fester into real and serious problems. In this case, I honestly think we are already at that point in many places, but even if that were not true, pretending that dissatisfaction is always just about idiots not seeing the whole picture is the surest way to become a fanatic yourself.

Again with the "you support Freedom; therefore, you support KKK's murdering people and government can do anything to anyone."

<farts>

Pretty much the exact opposite of what I said.

I said that we can ignore the odd KKKer.. they are outliers and idiots. BUT, when you start hearing similar-sounding, even marginally similar sounding ideas coming from more average, educated and thoughtful folks THEN it is time to be concerned. Shunting everyone with seemingly objectionable views aside might be expedient, but its hardly effective and definitely not a way to solve real life problems. Its also no way to understand how the world really works or what people truly think.

Remember, economics is just a mathematical prediction of human behavior. Without understanding human behavior, you can make a LOT of misjudgments. Or, to put it another way freekanomics works often better than standard economics.

[

[

There ARE many who will benefit from having a divided society, but that is not average middle class America. Previous groups came here to become part of the US, to become part of the culture. This new wave often wants nothing of that. That IS something to be concerned about. "Concerned" does not mean excluding out of hand, but it does mean that there are a lot of issue to be thought out.

That's doubtful. It depends on the changes in relative prices brought about by the positive change in immigration, which affects various labor markets and thus product markets. Do you think the average middle class American has benefited on net from the minimal restrictions on interstate migration?

Interstate and international immigration are entirely different things. Only when we become one, unified, voting world will that comparison matter. Pretending otherwise is purely obtuse.

Regarding immigration, I think you need to step outside of your neat text book theories and catch phrases long enough to observe what is really and truly happening, what has happened.

It is no coincidence that the concentration upward to not just the top 1%, but even a portion of that 1%, has occurred exactly when we have gotten this huge influx of largely illegal immigrants. HOWEVER, its no where near as simple as saying "they are taking our jobs". Both you and Phattscotty have, rightfully, pointed out that immigrants historically take the jobs American citizens won't take. They work hard and make our system work. However, in recent years that has changed to illegal immigrants not just taking the low paying and unattractive jobs to taking truly skilled positions. Also, because they have traditional societal networks still, which most Americans no longer have, they are often able to pull together in ways that more long-standing Americans have not. My dad, an immigrant, got jobs in part because of the network of people from his country of birth. That network is only very marginally available to myself and my brothers. It is not really available at all to my children. Some groups still have those ties. The church of the Latter-Day Saints, for example, makes great bones to instruct members to help each other.

Why do you fail to refute the analogy?

Your "analogy" is more like a diversion that you pretend is related. It is definintely not. I realize you often like to pretend to be an idiot, but claiming there is no difference between international movement and interstate movement is pretty bad.

Also, the part of your comment that does apply is irrelevant. Reference to current policy is extraneous precisely because it is not working, there is no real system of limitations such as bureaucrats like to pretend exists. In fact, the limit is that the less honest you are, the harder a time you will have getting here.. hardly the paradigm we wish to encourage.

[Metsfanmax]

I said that we can ignore the odd KKKer.. they are outliers and idiots. BUT, when you start hearing similar-sounding, even marginally similar sounding ideas coming from more average, educated and thoughtful folks THEN it is time to be concerned. Shunting everyone with seemingly objectionable views aside might be expedient, but its hardly effective and definitely not a way to solve real life problems. Its also no way to understand how the world really works or what people truly think.

Remember, economics is just a mathematical prediction of human behavior. Without understanding human behavior, you can make a LOT of misjudgments. Or, to put it another way freekanomics works often better than standard economics.

But then what do you propose to do about those who hold these views? We probably cannot legislate them into being more tolerant. If we open borders and effectively force integration, it is possible that could quell these problems -- a large reason why it is possible to be so racist has to be that these people do not have to live together.

Of course, it could also lead to race riots...

[PLAYER57832]

I said that we can ignore the odd KKKer.. they are outliers and idiots. BUT, when you start hearing similar-sounding, even marginally similar sounding ideas coming from more average, educated and thoughtful folks THEN it is time to be concerned. Shunting everyone with seemingly objectionable views aside might be expedient, but its hardly effective and definitely not a way to solve real life problems. Its also no way to understand how the world really works or what people truly think.

Remember, economics is just a mathematical prediction of human behavior. Without understanding human behavior, you can make a LOT of misjudgments. Or, to put it another way freekanomics works often better than standard economics.

But then what do you propose to do about those who hold these views?

Understand why people have those views. The KKKer (to pick a stereotype I already used) is a dead end, because, for them it is essentially a religious view... others are, plain inferior. You can show data, confront (as mentioned in the "should we ban..." (aka the censorship thread), and make sure that their voice is not heard without opposition, but you are very unlikely to change their view. Its not logic.

[ We probably cannot legislate them into being more tolerant. If we open borders and effectively force integration, it is possible that could quell these problems -- a large reason why it is possible to be so racist has to be that these people do not have to live together.

Well, now thank you for exactly illustrating the kind of bigotry of which I referred. See, assuming that people who don't want freely open border are just plain and simply bigoted is wrong. I am not saying that all people who hold those views are correct, but I AM saying that you cannot simply say "oh.. they don't want so many immigrants, obviously the only reason is xenophobia". Its plain wrong and therefore won't yield a solution.

I will give you and example. I am generally in favor of having kids exposed to multiple languages, particularly in elementary school. I think we, as a country are short-changing our kids by only teaching them English. BUT.... I have listened to far too many Mexican Americans who insist that everyone in this country should have to speak Spanish.. often instead of English (note, being specific, I do not mean generalized Latinos.. many of whom don't even speak Spanish!). I am NOT exaggerating! I have seen plenty of Mexican Americans who have lived here for decades, but who still don't speak English, who expect everyone else to speak Spanish. That is plain wrong! Note, I am no talking about the elderly lady or gentleman who tries, but who is just not able to pick up new languages. They deserve respect. But a young 20-something, or someone who maybe is 40 now, but who came here at age 20 (or younger) and still does not even try to learn English (we're not talking a learning issue, its a willingness issue!).. that is not OK. It has nothing to do with disliking Spanish or Mexicans. It has to do with the fact that either we have one, unified language or we will inherently be a nation divided by a gulf far greater than the imagined Dem/Repub divisions people try to make so much of today in politics. ALSO, the greatest irony is that these self-styled activists often, (in the LA district at least), push kids from families that really want their kids to learn English or who just don' even speak Spanish at home..they, too get labeled as "not supporting the culture!".

You can read this and say "sure... racist" OR you can actually read what I wrote and see that maybe, just maybe having huge numbers of people who not only do not speak English, but who have no interest in speaking English, is a problem. Its a small problem to have large numbers of people who don't speak your language, but that tends to fix itself rather quickly.. basically when the kids start coming, If not before. Having groups who plain refuse to speak the dominant language is downright harmful!

Of course, it could also lead to race riots...

Riots happen when people feel they have no other choice, when they feel that no one is listening to dialogue. Shutting people out, not listening to their views because you disagree is exactly what causes that.

Or, preventing riots is EXACTLY why it is important to listen to everyone.. particularly those with whom you disagree. Listening does not mean agreeing, but it also doesn't mean just keying in on certain key words and acting like that explains a whole dialogue.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, now thank you for exactly illustrating the kind of bigotry of which I referred. See, assuming that people who don't want freely open border are just plain and simply bigoted is wrong. I am not saying that all people who hold those views are correct, but I AM saying that you cannot simply say "oh.. they don't want so many immigrants, obviously the only reason is xenophobia". Its plain wrong and therefore won't yield a solution.

This whole post was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, obviously there are people who don't want open borders and it is for other reasons than xenophobia. But you and BBS were talking about people who are racist/xenophobic, and you discussed that we should pay attention to reasons for why they are that way. It's fine if you want to talk about reasons why people don't want open borders in general, but don't call me a bigot just because you can't keep straight what it is that you said in your last post.

It has to do with the fact that either we have one, unified language or we will inherently be a nation divided by a gulf far greater than the imagined Dem/Repub divisions people try to make so much of today in politics.

Switzerland has four official languages and various parts of their country are pretty entrenched in only speaking one language. They get along fine.

[mrswdk]

like I said, as long as you refuse to listen to anyone who does not agree with you, you won't learn a thing.

lol

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem is that no everyone wants to move here for positive reasons. Many people actually (gasp) want to do us serious harm, to benefit their home country, to "defend" their religion (not referring to people seeking to freely practice their religion, but those who see opposing religions as a threat worthy of violence), or have more personal harmful intent (whether drug dealing, extortion, or merely to make a lot of money by polluting/paying low wages, etc.).

No one is denying that all immigrants must be good.

Point is, pretending that we should just open our borders up to anyone without any adherence to responsibility won't work. That said, there is a HUGE difference between people who are just coming here to work and people coming for other reasons, including to live here permanently.

Who's pretending that everyone--regardless of criminal record or desire to work--should be allowed in place X?

The above quote. If moving is a right, then there should be no restrictions, though I will allow that we do restrict criminals within our own country, BUT the problem with immigration is that we lose those abilities and distinctions when we make the mere passage through a border to be an illegal act in itself.

Well, that's the problem with small quotes. When people support "the freedom of mobility in labor/capital," it's usually understood that they're not in favor of moving capital to Afghanistan so that it can be used to kill people (e.g. tanks and torture camps) or in favor of letting serial killers go to place X so that they can kill people (e.g. the serial killer market for labor). It's not like they drop their view on property rights when they talk about 'freedom of movement.'

Your world is indeed extremely small... its showing.

So, my world is small because you automatically assume that if someone wants looser immigration restrictions, it must follow that they want all criminals to emigrate from abroad?
RE: KKK argument and your criticism about economics:

You don't know enough about economics in order to criticize it.

Sure, if KKK-esque groups are running around killing people, then that should be addressed. I don't find this scenario likely, and if you're really concerned about it, then there's the inconsistency in your position on opposing interstate immigration.

Your "analogy" is more like a diversion that you pretend is related. It is definintely not. I realize you often like to pretend to be an idiot, but claiming there is no difference between international movement and interstate movement is pretty bad.

Also, the part of your comment that does apply is irrelevant. Reference to current policy is extraneous precisely because it is not working, there is no real system of limitations such as bureaucrats like to pretend exists. In fact, the limit is that the less honest you are, the harder a time you will have getting here.. hardly the paradigm we wish to encourage.

Since you're unwilling to examine the logical inconsistency of your stance, then there's no point debating with you.

[Phatscotty]

Hey Phats. Immigration restrictions prevent me from renting out a room to illegal immigrants or from offering them a job. I can't use my property or my money.

So, your rights are being violated? What's stopping you from moving to La Chureca and renting them out a room or exploiting their labor?

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey Phats. Immigration restrictions prevent me from renting out a room to illegal immigrants or from offering them a job. I can't use my property or my money.

So, your rights are being violated? What's stopping you from moving to La Chureca and renting them out a room or exploiting their labor?

1. The point being that what you said: "I guess everybody has the right to move into BBS's yard, millions have the right to move into BBS's neighbors houses, millions have the right to already packed classroms BBs's children as well as all his neighbors children attend.," doesn't make sense. When you want immigration restrictions, you prevent me from exercising my property rights over my house and my money. With looser immigration restrictions, it doesn't follow that immigrants will be forced into my home--that's up to me to decide (finally, gonna get some cheap poon-tang; I might invite you on weekends).


2. What's stopping me?
(A) the higher price (compare opening a craigslist offer in the US for an apartment/job v. traveling to MEX/La Chureca(?), building an apartment complex/factory, and running around trying to find demanders/suppliers).
(b) the lower productivity, higher risk, and lower profit from operating within Mexico--namely from its political institutions, f'd up crime problem, bad roads, poor business climate, etc.)

[Lootifer]

I agree with everything but the culture bit.

Culture is inherent to the person, its an communal identity, but it is tied to the individual and moves with them.

Now I was taught to be tolerant, respectful and open-minded and therefore when I visit a different culture to mine I obey the laws of FIFO (fit in or f*ck off), that is I respect the culture and follow all the customs to the best of my ability (and apologize profusely when I inevitably fail).

However even as respectful and open-minded as I may be, I know full well that if I went to country X which had a population of 5, and I brought 9 of my Kiwi friends, in only a short while we would have effectively altered that country's culture into something much like New Zealand's.

So saying immigration does not threaten culture is incorrect. Culture is the sum of your individual identities and when you add in something radically different it changes the composition, much like adding flavoring to a sauce. I am all for a flavorful sauce, with many different hints of taste and hidden delights for the tongue (crass euphemism intended), but fucked if I am going to stand for fundamentally altering our "she'll be right bro, just chuck a saussie on the barbie and have another beer c*nt" attitude to life in any way other than organically (that is through evolution of culture). Call me racist but f*ck ya, i'll drink a beer with anyone, I dont care what they have between their legs, who they like to spoon with, what color their skin or who they reckon is gonna look after them after they die, but if they dont wanna sit down and enjoy a cold beer with me (alcohol free if you insist) in the late summer sun and talk shit while eating a badly cooked piece of meat (or falafel for Nabil) then ya can piss off home.

[Falkomagno]

Immigration is crucial to development of culture and society as a whole. The focus should be in having strong principles as foundations of every society, in the most basic things as respect for each other’s life and protection of the vulnerable (children, older, the sick) instead of blocking borders to avoid something that cannot, (nor should be) avoided

Except, your basic assumption is incorrect. Not every society has the same things as its foundation. There is a huge difference between, for example, the state of Israel, the state of Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and the US.

Its ironic, but in advocating cultural diversity, you are actually ignoring the very real and serious differences that exist. Frankly, I don't want to be any of those countries listed. I don't particularly want to be Mexico, either. Yet.. if we continue to allow huge numbers of those people to come without any qualifications, without any restrictions, then that IS what we will become. That is the real risk here.

Not every society has its very same things as foundations, but there is certain things that should be in all the cultures, like respect for each others life. Which, as a culture, has a foundation the killing of each other? That focus on "we" against "them" is the origin of a lot of world conflicts, and one of the reasons that "we" as specie, keep being violent and cruel among each others.

There is a reason behind why,as society, we chose to respect life, instead of the opposite.

Now, you mentioned that don't want to be Mexico. Probably the Sioux didn't want to be "american" neither. That didn't stop the first english and dutch settlers to populate that part of the world, imposing a culture and a set of principles.

Cultural movility is desirable. We just have to agree in very basic global things as foundations of each society, and keep the cultural hues for the rest, as food, family values, religion, and so forth.

[mrswdk]

@Lootifer lolwut. Your entire country is built on the back of English guys deciding they liked the look of someone else's islands and then taking them for themselves. Are you saying you want to restrict the capacity to influence New Zealand's culture to descendants of those English men on the basis that it is not acceptable for outsiders to exert an influence over New Zealand's culture? And that you believe New Zealand's supposedly tolerant and rainbow culture was created without any influence from other cultures and will continue to survive if you insist on telling anyone different to 'f*ck off home'?

[Phatscotty]

I agree with everything but the culture bit.

Culture is inherent to the person, its an communal identity, but it is tied to the individual and moves with them.

Now I was taught to be tolerant, respectful and open-minded and therefore when I visit a different culture to mine I obey the laws of FIFO (fit in or f*ck off)

So, you mean it's okay to expect people be respectful and openminded when they visit a culture different than theirs, say YOURS on MINE?

I've basically been told that my culture doesn't deserve respect, and anyone who wants to can come shit on me.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, now thank you for exactly illustrating the kind of bigotry of which I referred. See, assuming that people who don't want freely open border are just plain and simply bigoted is wrong. I am not saying that all people who hold those views are correct, but I AM saying that you cannot simply say "oh.. they don't want so many immigrants, obviously the only reason is xenophobia". Its plain wrong and therefore won't yield a solution.

This whole post was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, obviously there are people who don't want open borders and it is for other reasons than xenophobia. But you and BBS were talking about people who are racist/xenophobic, and you discussed that we should pay attention to reasons for why they are that way. It's fine if you want to talk about reasons why people don't want open borders in general, but don't call me a bigot just because you can't keep straight what it is that you said in your last post.

No, go back and reread. I am talking about people who are NOT inherently xenophobic or racist, but who do object to having freely open borders... and the fact that simply saying people who think having more Mexicans in a large part of our country than native-born citizens are just racist IS part of why there is still a problem.

[

It has to do with the fact that either we have one, unified language or we will inherently be a nation divided by a gulf far greater than the imagined Dem/Repub divisions people try to make so much of today in politics.

Switzerland has four official languages and various parts of their country are pretty entrenched in only speaking one language. They get along fine.

Switzerland is a VERY small country, and nowhere near as diverse as you imply. Canada is closer, with French... and it is rife with issues. BUT.. my real point is that, regardless of how you sit on that particular issue, labeling me racist because I am no longer always in favor of Spanish bilingual education (as it is in CA.. Florida is a different story) is wrong... and, well, that accusation was made (though I cannot remember if you did it or someone else).

[Lootifer]

@Lootifer lolwut. Your entire country is built on the back of English guys deciding they liked the look of someone else's islands and then taking them for themselves. Are you saying you want to restrict the capacity to influence New Zealand's culture to descendants of those English men on the basis that it is not acceptable for outsiders to exert an influence over New Zealand's culture? And that you believe New Zealand's supposedly tolerant and rainbow culture was created without any influence from other cultures and will continue to survive if you insist on telling anyone different to 'f*ck off home'?

Current culture, that has got to where it is in the last however long organically. I dont really care for the past. The whole world was built on slavery for a time, but so what, that was yesterday (though obviously learn from lessons, record history etc etc.).

I am against the rapid change of anyones culture. And it's not just a matter of "dem azn fullas are everywhere" kind of crap: thats good old fashioned racism. I am talking about anyone, in fact I would suggest the three worst offenders at going somewhere and dumping their own culture where they land are Aussies, Kiwis and Americans.

And PS everyones culture deserves respect, including yours. (for example I respect your gun culture - much like I respect the, slightly perplexing, customs of the conservative middle east - I dont necessarily agree, but thats neither here nor there).

[PLAYER57832]

I think we need a "reset" on this.

Ok, you want a caste system.

The real point is that we HAVE caste system right now. We have a very divided society that is becoming more so, and this bit about illegal/legal immigration is only a very small part of that.

And, I think letting a mom stay here with her kids, though without all the privileges I or immigrants who go through certain yet to be defined hoops is far, FAR better than either locking mom up and deporting her away from her kids or, worse, sending the kids away from their parents.

I honestly don't care if the parents came here legally or not, I think kids belong with their parents (unless the parents have made other arrangements) unless the parents are abusive or such. Beyond that, I think putting too strong of an emphasis on how someone got across the border, when they are just wanting either safety or work or both, is just misplaced. The emphasis should be on what they do once they are here.

Yet, we cannot simply open our borders to every last person who wants to come, regardless of skills, means of support, etc. (skip the criminality bit as a given we want to avoid). Doing so destabilizes any country. Setting such strict quotas and limits that more people are now here illegally than here legally is also bad.

I also see the biggest part of this wave of now illegal immigrants as being driven by employers.. employers who do want lower wage workers and less complaining workers. In some cases, these employers have a legitimate case. In others, its more grey. At any rate, because the problem is employer-driven, I think that a solution has to target employers more than the immigrants themselves. The immigrants should be "targeted" only for true illegal activity... (that is, I am not into deporting an 18 year old for running a stop sign or speeding when he was 16).

In addition, I think while deporting criminals is OK generally, we do need to give considerations to whether the country of origin can handle the person, most particularly when they came here as young children. It may make folks "feel good" to simply deport criminals, but it may be more harmful to us in the long run... as this latest wave of children shows.