US Immigration - More, or Less?

[Centurion Quintus]

I personally think that it is in America's - and foreign countries best interests to lessen yearly immigration. The amount of money being extracated from us yearly to foreign workers is far above what should be acceptable. Foreign cultures are a priceless, and wonderful thing that are rapidly disappearing. As more, and more people from other countries become "westernized", and exposed to America's infamous "Use - and - waste" mentality it jeaprodizes their very nations self. America also needs to maintain it's own culture.

What do you all think?

[removeduser_487563287433]

America has a culture? I kid, I kid.

Seriously, Fraiser is an awesome show.

I know nothing about American immigration. But in the UK I see it as mostly a political football rather than a real problem.

[Lord Rahl]

I voted to maintain the same. I think that immigration is good but I think we should make it harder to immigrate. Mostly for security reasons. America was the new world and should stay in that limelight.

[wilpuri]

Originally posted by Lord Rahl@Apr 8 2005, 10:52 PM
Mostly for security reasons. America was the new world and should stay in that limelight.

What does this mean?

[Boyar Son]

What does this mean?

It means AMERICA STRONG or, AMERICA SUPERIOR. Which it pretty much is.

[Augustine]

Close off the border so the drug runners/gangs/smugglers/rapists can't get here. Then once the border is secure, allow legal immigrants with backround checks to enter.

I'm for immigration, but I'm not for Mexicans commiting crimes here then running back across the border.

[Perkele]

Well, I'd actually vote for "Ignore(as in ignore the whole question)". Today's nations are not the same as in 19th century or even early 20th century. And by time it will change even more and more, with the 'globalization' and all. People should be able to move as they wish.

[Centurion Quintus]

You can't just go wherever you want recklessly. There has to be some kind of standard upon whom, how, and when we let people into the country.

As for the security reasons, you're absolutely right. Being as..."well liked" as America is. (Sarcasm). A lot of people are willing to go veyr far to try and pull something on us.

[Wicked]

I voted for "Lessen", primarily due to no differentiation made between legal & illegal in the poll.

For legal, I don't really have a problem with our current intake, although I do take issue at our having/had biased yearly intake quotas for immigrants from various nations/regions, to my mind it should be equal opportunity.

In the area of legal immigration I would also like to see an end to granting refugee status for any reason, along with some decent educational standards set for incoming immigrants.

As for illegal...if I had my way CA, AZ, NM, and TX would be in possession of a fully functional McNamara Line/Berlin Wall.

[Centurion Quintus]

Yes, that would be slightly garrish of us though.

To build a cross state enormous wall to block out Mexicans?

I say that the government just investigates a little deeper into buisnesses. Any buisness caught with an Illegal immigrant on the payroll is immidiately shut down. That, would single handedly stop the hiring of Illegals everywhere. And, everyone knows that the only reason illegals come here illegally is because they are poor, and want jobs. With no jobs - no encentive to come in the first place.

Viola!

[Profler]

I say that the government just investigates a little deeper into buisnesses. Any buisness caught with an Illegal immigrant on the payroll is immidiately shut down. That, would single handedly stop the hiring of Illegals everywhere. And, everyone knows that the only reason illegals come here illegally is because they are poor, and want jobs. With no jobs - no encentive to come in the first place.

That's a serious infringement of the free market though, business and development require cheap, migrant labour. Legal migrants will always cost more than illegal migrants, so to carry out serious reductions in the illegal migrant population would hit business.

[dangerdog]

I don't know if it's going to be more or less, but I would like to see immigration become more merit based. *tongue*

I think we should encourage immigration of people who can pull more than their share of the weight. Ph.Ds, doctors, skilled craftsmen, engineers, famous artist, ect. We should welcome anyone who can generate more wealth than liabilities. Opposit to that, we should curtail immigration of people who would be a drain on our national resources. After all, we are not a charity organization. We got a national debt up to our noses, and our social security system is going six feet under as it is.

Of course, I'm not saying only skilled and educated people should be allowed. We should make a few exceptions for political refugees. And of course, exempt the immediate family memebers of a qualified immigrant.

I know it sounds a little heartless, but we got our own problems to deal with first. We are not the world's police, nor are we the world's refugee camp, nor are we the holyland. And as with every nation, we should look out for our own national interest first. :whistle

[Carsomyr]

Originally posted by Profler@Apr 8 2005, 04:46 PM

That's a serious infringement of the free market though, business and development require cheap, migrant labour. Legal migrants will always cost more than illegal migrants, so to carry out serious reductions in the illegal migrant population would hit business.

Care to clarify? If that's the case, then why didn't businesses suffer in the past when illegal migration wasn't as rampant as it is today? I think businesses are using illegals as an excuse for cheap labor. There are plenty of unemployed people in the US to fill vacant jobs. I just don't understand how, in the past, when illegal immigration was hardly as serious as it now and businesses weren't suffering, but now illegal immigrants are flooding across the boarder and all of the sudden businesses will suffer without them.

[Centurion Quintus]

It doesn't matter if buisness would take a hit fact is - America can, and needs to support their buisnesses with CITIZENS. Not illegal migrant workers. We are fully capable, we're in the end, losing more money going to illegals, than buisness would without them. Because they are illegal, they pocket cash and don't pay taxes. My father owns resturants, a bunch of illegals work as dishwashers. That's how it works.

[Profler]

Care to clarify? If that's the case, then why didn't businesses suffer in the past when illegal migration wasn't as rampant as it is today? I think businesses are using illegals as an excuse for cheap labor. There are plenty of unemployed people in the US to fill vacant jobs. I just don't understand how, in the past, when illegal immigration was hardly as serious as it now and businesses weren't suffering, but now illegal immigrants are flooding across the boarder and all of the sudden businesses will suffer without them.

a) Can you prove that unofficial and illegal migration has not been taking place throughout 'the past'?

b) The modern worker i considerably more expensive to maintain, unless they are outside of the system, in which case loopholes can be found and corners can be cut on the documentation. In short, it means cheaper labour and higher turnover, it's a basic principle of the way the market works. If the job is low skilled, it doesn't matter where they come from, as long as they're the cheapest labour going.

It doesn't matter if buisness would take a hit fact is - America can, and needs to support their buisnesses with CITIZENS. Not illegal migrant workers. We are fully capable, we're in the end, losing more money going to illegals, than buisness would without them. Because they are illegal, they pocket cash and don't pay taxes. My father owns resturants, a bunch of illegals work as dishwashers. That's how it works.

They also cost the state next to nothing and have no way of taking legal action etc. that could cause problems for employers. The course of action you seem to be recomending (requiring business to employ only US citizens) would be costly to enforce, inhibit the basic freedoms of the free market and increase the costs to individual businesses.

[Lord Rahl]

Originally posted by wilpuri@Apr 8 2005, 02:13 PM
(Lord Rahl @ Apr 8 2005, 10:52 PM)

Mostly for security reasons. America was the new world and should stay in that limelight.

What does this mean?

What I meant was...

I think that the USA should still have the incentive and want for immigration but at the same time make immigration a more secure process. The border between Mexico and USA needs to be upgraded to secure the whole border, not just pockets. The 9/11 terrorists were let in with visas that would usually be deemed incomplete and disposed of. However, Clinton's Mary Ryan decided to streamline the passport and visa process because Saudi Arabia and other countries complained about the applications and paperwork to be too complicated and 'insulting'. This was because prior to 1993 the USA did thorough background checks of all who wanted visas and passports. America was always called the land of opportunity, freedom, and the new world. I suggest that the USA still lets immigrants through but keeps our country safe as well.

[Carsomyr]

Originally posted by Profler@Apr 8 2005, 05:14 PM

a) Can you prove that unofficial and illegal migration has not been taking place throughout 'the past'?

b) The modern worker i considerably more expensive to maintain, unless they are outside of the system, in which case loopholes can be found and corners can be cut on the documentation. In short, it means cheaper labour and higher turnover, it's a basic principle of the way the market works. If the job is low skilled, it doesn't matter where they come from, as long as they're the cheapest labour going.

A. Can you point to me where I stated illegal migration was not taking place in the past?

B. The modern worker may be more expensive, but does that mean unlawful actions and practices should be condoned or flat-out ignored for the sake of saving a 'few bucks'? I'm not asking you for a miracle solution to cure the dilemma because none exists, but this is definitely something that shouldn't be condoned.

[dgoodman]

I think immigration is a important part of our country and people should be allowed to come in as they wish. We should remove all quota systems and make it clear to mexicans that they can apply legaly with ease. Then we could close the border down to make sure those with criminal records dont get in. Better legal and plentiful than illegal and plentiful. Plus, being legal, they would pay taxes other then social security and mefdicare and would be easier to monitor criminality. The actual amount of immigrants would stills tay the same, well mabye the ones who die trying to cross will get in too.

[Wicked]

@Profler

They also cost the state next to nothing and have no way of taking legal action etc.

Bull...and a lot of it.

They are a significant drain on state resources, and they can in fact take legal action. Due to a number of federal laws passed by vote buying jackholes in D.C. states are required to provide virtually the same welfare state services accorded to citizens, along with a few that are not, however the fed refuses to pay the bill for this crap so the states foot the bill, along with reservations, with absolutely no compensation.

One of the main reasons I would support a rather extreme measure like a wall is crap like that, let 'em immigrate all they want, but as citizens, otherwise it's the taxpayers footing the bill for corporations to have cheap labour...which is not in fact cheap to anyone but the corporations.

It comes down to money, personally I couldn't give a flying F where your from, what colour you are, or what invisible man you worship, but I do expect you to pay your way if you want to live here (And learning the language would be nice too), which means paying taxes.

This is yet another reason why a wall is good, it's been proven to work where they've put stretches in place, we can't depend on Mexico to police her borders, in fact they actively support illegal immigration, because the illegals don't pay taxes here, but they send money home to their family, who get taxed in their country of origin, and they can obviously make more money here than they can at home, thus more tax money at home, therefore no reason for the country of origin to prevent an otherwise poor potential for tax income from immigrating illegally.

[Profler]

Originally posted by Carsomyr+Apr 8 2005, 10:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Carsomyr &#064; Apr 8 2005, 10:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Profler@Apr 8 2005, 05:14 PM

a) Can you prove that unofficial and illegal migration has not been taking place throughout &#39;the past&#39;?

b) The modern worker i considerably more expensive to maintain, unless they are outside of the system, in which case loopholes can be found and corners can be cut on the documentation. In short, it means cheaper labour and higher turnover, it&#39;s a basic principle of the way the market works. If the job is low skilled, it doesn&#39;t matter where they come from, as long as they&#39;re the cheapest labour going.

A. Can you point to me where I stated illegal migration was not taking place in the past?

B. The modern worker may be more expensive, but does that mean unlawful actions and practices should be condoned or flat-out ignored for the sake of saving a &#39;few bucks&#39;? I&#39;m not asking you for a miracle solution to cure the dilemma because none exists, but this is definitely something that shouldn&#39;t be condoned. [/b][/quote]
I should have qualified point a)

Care to clarify? If that&#39;s the case, then why didn&#39;t businesses suffer in the past when illegal migration wasn&#39;t as rampant as it is today?

It was in reference to the above post, I forgot however to add the words &#39;on a comparable scale&#39; after &#39;taking place&#39;.

As for condoning it or not, it depends whether you favour state or market. The market is more than capable of acting above the law and many business sectors have been successfully getting away with frankly blatant breaches of law for decades. Enforcement would require serious state intervention, not necessarily palatable for a significant proportion of the electorate.

EDIT:

They are a significant drain on state resources, and they can in fact take legal action. Due to a number of federal laws passed by vote buying jackholes in D.C. states are required to provide virtually the same welfare state services accorded to citizens, along with a few that are not, however the fed refuses to pay the bill for this crap so the states foot the bill, along with reservations, with absolutely no compensation.

Misuse of the word &#39;state&#39; on my part given the situation, the federal-state balance in the US is something I will always find bizarre. As for legal action, aside from the odd work-short human rights lawyer going fishing for cases, how often is an illegal immigrant (not necessarily able to speak English fluently) going to either have access to the information they need to be able to take action in practice?