[luke warm]

hrothgar, on May 18 2008, 10:32 AM, said:

luke warm, on May 18 2008, 05:56 PM, said:

there was a difference, al... at that time the immigrants coming here actually wanted to assimilate into american culture, they wanted to learn the language, they were actually proud to be called americans... most importantly, imo, they came legally

Ignorant nativists have been making the same asinine claims for 200+ years.

Jimmy's arguments are almost identical to ones advanced by the "Know Nothings" back in the 1850s.

The immigrants aren't assimilating
They aren't learning the language
They're loyal to the pope
They're all a bunch of lazy drunkards
God help us if they ever start voting

richard, are you talking about legal or illegal immigrants? fwiw for the most part i see no sign that the illegals of today want to assimilate or care to learn the language... i (i'll leave the characterizations to you) never said anything about their drinking or religious habits... and i'm all in favor of legal immigration... what were the know nothings against, exactly?

i believe it's illegal for them to vote in american elections, but that might just be the ignorant nativist in me... i'm interested in your thoughts on how exactly you define a country if not by borders, common culture and common language (among other things)

al said:

The point is that you don't want assimilation, you want invigoration.

The hybridization that results from the input of new ideas and new approaches is what improves the mix, not making everything into one bland vanilla-like blend.

They were "legal" because the laws didn't restrict their entry to the same extent. Fear drives those restrictions and it is an irrational fear at that. Conservatives want to keep what they have....as in to keep it away from those that might get a chance to access it by their own merit or contribution.

i guess time will tell, al... i honestly don't know anyone who is against immigration in the usa, although i'm sure there are such folks... give me an example of a bland, vanilla-like country so i can see what you mean... australia? switzerland? also, when you have time, look at the immigration laws of mexico and tell me whether you think theirs are better or fairer or more liberal than ours

[DrTodd13]

Borders are arbitrary lines drawn by racists (culturalist if you prefer) to deny individuals of other people groups their fundamental right to freedom of movement. I don't have a right to get to decide who can and can't move into my neighborhood. I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

[luke warm]

DrTodd13, on May 18 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

what does?

[kenberg]

DrTodd13, on May 18 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

Borders are arbitrary lines drawn by racists (culturalist if you prefer) to deny individuals of other people groups their fundamental right to freedom of movement. I don't have a right to get to decide who can and can't move into my neighborhood. I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

With this logic I suppose you could say the door of my house is an arbitrary line drawn by a racist/culturalist/whatever name you wish to call me to deny people the freedom of movement they might wish to exercise.

Damn straight. That's its purpose alright.

I see it as pretty much the same with borders and with citizenship. That side's your's, this side's mine. Let the name calling begin.

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on May 18 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on May 18 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

what does?

Nothing

[Al_U_Card]

In biblical terms, do unto others.

Try inviting them first. If they accept then everyone is happy.

[DrTodd13]

kenberg, on May 18 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on May 18 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

Borders are arbitrary lines drawn by racists (culturalist if you prefer) to deny individuals of other people groups their fundamental right to freedom of movement.  I don't have a right to get to decide who can and can't move into my neighborhood.  I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

With this logic I suppose you could say the door of my house is an arbitrary line drawn by a racist/culturalist/whatever name you wish to call me to deny people the freedom of movement they might wish to exercise.

Damn straight. That's its purpose alright.

I see it as pretty much the same with borders and with citizenship. That side's your's, this side's mine. Let the name calling begin.

You own your property. You don't own your country. That is the difference. If you can't see how fundamental this difference is then you've been brainwashed.

[DrTodd13]

blackshoe, on May 18 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

luke warm, on May 18 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on May 18 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

I don't care if it is 1 or 1000 or 10,000,000 people, sheer numbers doesn't bestow the legitimate authority to tell people where they can go.

what does?

Nothing

Bravo!

[helene_t]

I think I agree with Todd. I say "I think" because I am somewhat uncertain about some practical issues related to opening the borders. But denying law-abiding people the right to settle in whatever country they prefer purely on the basis of their nationality seems very unfair.

But even at the practical level, if I allow myself to switch into cynic mode and forget about fundamental rights for a moment, I think the fear of uncontrolled immigration is exaggerated. What shows this to me is the concept of "working permit". In many cases it is quite easy to get access to a country as a "tourist", while getting a working permit can be next to impossible.

This is something I don't understand. I think a "tourist" is more likely to be a criminal than someone who comes to work and pay taxes. Presumably the idea is that immigration of unskilled workers put pressure on the salaries. But as others have noted, instead of using cheap immigrant labor, our companies just outsource to low-wage countries.

[luke warm]

i have trouble differentiating between the man who builds a house on property, fences it off, raises crops and a family and claims the land his own and the group of men who do the same (with borders being the fences) and calling it a country

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 19 2008, 02:25 AM, said:

richard, are you talking about legal or illegal immigrants?

What immigration laws?

Looking back, the first real immigration law was the Chinese Exclusion Act 1882.
This was followed by the Emergency Quota Act in 1921. Moreover, even when these laws were put on the books, they weren't really enforced. It took a combination of the Great Depression followed by WWII before anything took notice.

For most of US history, there was no such thing as "illegal immigration"... Plenty of paranoia about immigration, exactly the same set of arguments about immigrants failing to assimilate any destroying American culture, but no such thing as an immigration law.

Personally, I think that immigration laws are a mistake. Capital is highly mobile. If you attempt to restrict labor mobility by banning immigration its simply going to encourage capital flight.

[Al_U_Card]

And, of course, the precursor to that was....importing slaves to do the labor.

The flaw is more fundamental than that.

[kenberg]

This information interests me for personal reasons. My father went through Ellis Island in 1910. It was an interesting situation. He was ten, he came with his older brother who was fifteen. My paternal grandfather was already here, he had left the boys somewhere in Europe (my father was never really very clear about where) while he came ahead. The mechanics of this interest me. Are you saying that the boys could pretty much just get off the boat and walk in, no questions asked? This would surprise me, but I am not prepared to contradict you.


This, you can imagine, was not an easy time in my father's life and he never much talked about it. I have thought of trying to track down some of the details but it's tough. I have found the name of the boat with the passenger list.

[luke warm]

i'm also surprised by richard's answer, though not prepared to refute it... if there are no immigration laws i think that might come as a surprise to the many people who can't get in (legally, that is - assuming such a thing exists)... what are green cards? why have them? what is a citizenship oath? what does taking it allow/disallow?

al said:

And, of course, the precursor to that was....importing slaves to do the labor

do you not see any similarities between business using illegals for cheap labor and slavery? of course i know they aren't the same, maybe not even close, but there are imo similarities

[jtfanclub]

luke warm, on May 19 2008, 03:46 PM, said:

do you not see any similarities between business using illegals for cheap labor and slavery? of course i know they aren't the same, maybe not even close, but there are imo similarities

Ask the descendants of the Chinese 'immigrants' who labored on the rail lines. The one real difference was the lottery, which allowed allowed a few Chinese to buy themselves out of their indentured servitude, and then earn enough to buy freedom for their relatives.

[luke warm]

is that a yes?

[blackshoe]

Indentured servitude is not slavery.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on May 19 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

Indentured servitude is not slavery.

Right, you just spend from birth to death working for a railroad, where they can legally beat you and have you imprisoned if you try to run away. Nothing like slavery at all.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on May 19 2008, 07:31 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 19 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

Indentured servitude is not slavery.

Right, you just spend from birth to death working for a railroad, where they can legally beat you and have you imprisoned if you try to run away. Nothing like slavery at all.

Clearly you have no clue what the term "indentured servitude" means.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on May 20 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on May 19 2008, 07:31 PM, said:

blackshoe, on May 19 2008, 07:04 PM, said:

Indentured servitude is not slavery.

Right, you just spend from birth to death working for a railroad, where they can legally beat you and have you imprisoned if you try to run away. Nothing like slavery at all.

Clearly you have no clue what the term "indentured servitude" means.

Clearly you have no clue as to how the Chinese railroad workers were treated.

I doubt the foremen would have given a ***** that some dictionary said that they should be treating them nicer.