|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Immigration -- what's the big deal? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Back at the start of this country there was virtually unregulated immigration, Don't you think that things are different today than they were at the start of the country?
and I don't see any moral justification for more regulation or barriers to immigration. If we get too full or cannot afford to immigrate more people, then that would justify more regulations/barriers, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Also, did you know that immigrants from the UK are not even eligible for the green card lottery? that is restricted to natives of many 3rd world countries who apparently need it more. The lottery has nothing to do with 'need'. It is a Multiculturalism policy specifically meant to 'shake up' the cultural identity of America by introducing people with foreign cultural practices that are often totally incompatible with the Western ideals of freedom and individual liberty.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Also, did you know that immigrants from the UK are not even eligible for the green card lottery? that is restricted to natives of many 3rd world countries who apparently need it more. The lottery is for countries that have low immigration rates to the US. The hard line is at 50,000 immigrants per year. Citizens from the following counties were ineligible for the 2014 lottery:
quote: Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Makes my job easier, I guess. What job is that? Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What job is that? Pointing out that RAZD lives in a fantasy world where all of his half-cooked ideas solve any problem imaginable. It's dirty work, most of the time, but someone's gotta do it.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat Sci writes:
The aboriginal people tried that approach. Their barriers didn't work.
If we get too full or cannot afford to immigrate more people, then that would justify more regulations/barriers, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
I bet we can get an illegal immigrant to do it for less.
It's dirty work, most of the time, but someone's gotta do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The aboriginal people tried that approach. Did they? In what way?
Their barriers didn't work. What barriers? In any event, they weren't strong enough - we were stronger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Don't you think that things are different today than they were at the start of the country? The first laws were fairly simple:
quote: The ""free white persons"" is fairly consistent with the Constitution restrictions on voting rights. These requirements were broadened in late 1800's to allow blacks The first restrictive\exclusive immigration laws were ~ 1900:
quote: quote: We still see xenophobia in discussions of immigration law regarding latinos and muslims ...
If we get too full or cannot afford to immigrate more people, then that would justify more regulations/barriers, no? What is "too full" -- and by who's standard? Does New York City have too many immigrants? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Back at the start of this country there was virtually unregulated immigration,
Don't you think that things are different today than they were at the start of the country? What I meant was: the country today is nothing like it was in the beginning, so the immigration laws that worked back then probably are not going to work today.
If we get too full or cannot afford to immigrate more people, then that would justify more regulations/barriers, no? What is "too full" -- and by who's standard? Does New York City have too many immigrants? Oh, I don't know the particulars. You said that you didn't see any moral justification for more regulation or barriers to immigration. I was offering being too full or having too little money as possible justifications for you to consider. They would justify it, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What I meant was: the country today is nothing like it was in the beginning, so the immigration laws that worked back then probably are not going to work today. But those laws did not change because something dreadful happened or because we ran out of room, they changed because of xenophobia and fear. Note that today some people are admitted by a lottery system, so the only difference between that and letting in anyone who wants to work 5 years is ... ?
Oh, I don't know the particulars. So it will just be a feeling?
You said that you didn't see any moral justification for more regulation or barriers to immigration. It's a matter of being unabashedly committed to the basic founding principles of this country, that all people are created equal, entitled to freedom, liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness, and the inalienable rights of ALL people ... ... that means that the people who just happen to live in the US are no more special than other people ... there is no citizenship test for people born here ...
I was offering being too full or having too little money as possible justifications for you to consider. They would justify it, no? I don't see why. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was offering being too full or having too little money as possible justifications for you to consider. They would justify it, no? I don't see why. Well, if you run out of money then your whole country collapses. And then you can't help anybody. Its too full when you're having trouble keeping a healthy environment for the immigrants. Out of curiosity, have you ever played a civilization simulator?
So it will just be a feeling? It was a thought. To your question...
It's a matter of being unabashedly committed to the basic founding principles of this country, that all people are created equal, entitled to freedom, liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness, and the inalienable rights of ALL people ... The founding principles? No, those were for white people. Mostly white male land-owners. But yes, we have expanded on it quite a bit since then.
... that means that the people who just happen to live in the US are no more special than other people ... there is no citizenship test for people born here ... Well, that's not what that meant, but I get what you're saying.
But those laws did not change because something dreadful happened or because we ran out of room, How do you know? I now have reason to read your links, so I will, but I don't have the time at the moment. I'll get to it tomorrow. I can just reply to that post again, if you want to wait, or I can throw it in to a reply to your reply to this if you can't.
they changed because of xenophobia and fear. What do you mean by xenophobia? The definitions I see include qualifiers like unreasonable and irrational. If there's good reasons for the laws, then I don't they should be called xenophobic.
But those laws did not change because something dreadful happened or because we ran out of room, they changed because of xenophobia and fear. Anyways, that's quite a case to build. Do you have anything else to support it besides links to those laws? ABE:
The first laws were fairly simple:
quote: The ""free white persons"" is fairly consistent with the Constitution restrictions on voting rights. Okay, so "in the beginning", citizenship was only for white people. And, you had to apply; They didn't have to give it to you if they didn't want to. If they didn't think you had a good enough moral character, then that was reason enough to deny you citizenship. So, as I said, that's not really going to work today.
The first restrictive\exclusive immigration laws were ~ 1900:
quote: If you look into the background of that act, you'll find stuff like:
quote: So they thought they were running out of money. Not that that rules out xenophobia too. I thought it was interesting that the people who pushed for allowing the Chinese to immigrate did so not because they were unabashedly committed to the inalienable rights of ALL people, but instead because of the money they could make off these people:
quote: For this one:
quote: I do see the whole "fear" thing, but if it is warranted fear, and the Bolshevik Revolution was something they didn't want happening here, then I'm not so sure that fear is unreasonable or irrational and, thus, I don't think it should be called xenophobic. In hind sight, it may appear unwarranted, but the people living in those times don't have that luxury. I don't think its fair to just assume that they were "hating others". Perhaps they did have good reasons for wanting to preserve that "American homogeneity". I don't know, I'll have to look into it more. Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cat's Eye writes:
Tomahawks.
ringo writes:
Did they? In what way?
The aboriginal people tried that approach. ringo writes:
What barriers? Their barriers didn't work. Cat's Eye writes:
That's what I said. In any event, they weren't strong enough - we were stronger. And who's to say that the new wave of immigrants won't be stronger than us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And who's to say that the new wave of immigrants won't be stronger than us? They aren't. And they won't be. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
I question your powers of prognostication.
ringo writes:
They aren't. And who's to say that the new wave of immigrants won't be stronger than us? And they won't be.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024