Immigration - why do people want open borders?

[FormerRepublican]

There's something I don't understand, and I think it will probably get me flamed.

Why should the US have open borders with Mexico? I know that the economic situation is bad and people are suffering in Mexico. The economic situation in the US is bad and I'M suffering.

The US government and Americans are not responsible for the welfare of Mexican citizens. Their government and their communities are. Mexico is not responsible for us, nor do I expect them to take any responsibility for us. There are a lot of people in Mexico who are a lot richer than I am. Mexico and the US are not the same country, nor can one country be responsible for the citizens of both. Our government needs to be working to resolve our problems, and Mexico's government needs to be working to resolve theirs. We can't support and provide economic prosperity for the entire world. Rich though this country is, even the assets of the richest among us are not enough to offset the endless poverty that fills the world. And the rich in America are the few, not the many.

If you're American, I don't care what color you are, your origins, how much money you have, or what language you speak. You have all the rights and responsibilities that I do, equal in every way. If you're not a citizen, then I don't want you here unless you're legal. I certainly don't want you if you're a criminal using the border as a way to escape punishment for your crimes.

Crass as it sounds, I feel this way because Americans are suffering, and no one cares about OUR future or OUR suffering. I guess they're too busy lobbying for illegals. Every time I hear that we should allow the poor in Mexico to immigrate to alleviate their problems it feels like a slap in the face to America's poor, who no one cares about. And I feel unequal because I think the government cares more about illegals from Mexico than they care about me.

1 in 10 Mexican citizens live in the US, many of them illegally (I think I read that on MSNBC, I forget). For everyone who advocates opening the borders wide open because of Mexican poverty, then I need to remind you about American poverty that goes unaddressed. And it's not the rich who suffer from unlimited illegal immigration - it's the poor. Illegals compete for jobs at the low end where the poor toil and struggle to find jobs - not in the educated realms of high paying jobs. But no one cares about America's poor - they only care about citizens of other countries.

I think that's wrong.

[thoughtanarchist]

1. Hope you got your flame resistant armor on tonight...

On edit...

You're making all kinds of sense here; I think the real controversy arises when we begin to discuss what to do about current illegal residents and how they are allowed to conduct their lives here as such.

[FormerRepublican]

4. Why don't we care about America's poor anymore?

I guess that's where my real complaint lies. It's OK to starve America's poor and make them homeless, but we should hand over cash to every other poor country in the world - and take tax money from America's working poor to do it.

I understand if you disagree with me, but can you please explain WHY you disagree?

[thoughtanarchist]

6. I don't disagree at all.

In fact I've been flamed seriously in old posts for voicing this same opinion. I can try to present both sides of this issue at the same time:

a) This is a class thing not a nationality thing. Why make MORE people suffer who are already here and just trying to feed their kids.

VS.

b) Illegal immigrants are breaking the law and getting away with it although most legal residents have no such privilege. We work our butts off and play fair only to come up against unfair competition from illegal laborers willing to undercut our labor laws and work for less than a living wage.

As noted by many others on these boards, the hint at a solution lies in the employers who hire illegals, the fact that they are not held accountable for this behavior, and the fact that these employers often can afford to buy the politics that allow the practice to continue.

[FormerRepublican]

8. Well...

...if a) were really true, then why are they still allowing illegal immigration? Why would they object to securing the borders so we don't get NEW illegal immigrants? Why demand open borders instead of arguing that illegals currently here should be naturalized and the borders secured so no illegals can cross after day x?

I have talked to a few people from Mexico who want to live here (legal or illegal) but still be Mexican. Some think the parts of the US they live in should be turned back over to Mexico. I think part of the problem is those who seriously object to controls on illegal immigration have conflicted national loyalties. Therein lies a big problem for Americans, I think.

Something is off on the whole argument.

[thoughtanarchist]

9. Starting to venture into unfamiliar territory but...

I believe those of the a)persuasion hold that if someone is so desperate that they are willing to risk death and / or injury to try to build a new better life here they should be allowed to do so.

Now would be a good time for someone who holds this opinion to chime in because I cannot defend that particular viewpoint.

[blondeatlast]

22. Tough call, but I'll try. I find it difficult to make a distinction betwee

economic desperation and political desperation. We do allow immigration for the latter, but anyone who can separate politics and economics is way too sharp for me to debate, I freely admit.

Both are artificial constructs, usually completely out of the control of those most affected by the situation (see my reply to you below concerning going after the businesses).

I've seen what I'm certain are undocumented workers hundreds of times (I'm a Zonie). They are a fact of life, and I'm all too aware of what they have gone through to make it here.

There was even a "coyote" house busted just down a few houses from mine a few years ago--there were dozens of people living in a house similar in size to me.

I think the INTIMATE familiarity with the issue clouds any objectivity here.

As to the OP, it's ridiculous to think I don't care about poor people--why is poverty a thing restricted by nationality?

[FormerRepublican]

23. Hmm...

Why is coming here a more desirable solution than working to solve the problems of their own country at home? We don't tell other nations to come on in and go to work - we limit their immigration to keep from being innundated. We expect them to solve their own economic problems.

If we opened the border completely, we wouldn't have room to wiggle because an endless number of impoverished immigrants would like to come here to improve themselves. Some of them are far worse off than Mexican nationals. Why are Mexicans so special that they get special treatment?

I can't undo the fact that there is economic disparity between countries. I didn't cause it. I'm not sure it's right to impoverish our country to address the issue by allowing unlimited immigration - and that's what totally open borders would lead to. Why is it right to make Americans suffer to alleviate the suffering of foreign nationals?

[thoughtanarchist]

29. That's what CAFTA is for,,,

lowering our standard of living so that the average american lives roughly the same lifestyle as the average mexican. Instead of US companies raising the standard of living when they move industrial plants down there, they pay slave wages that do not help the locals and do not help american workers.

It's back to regulation of industry again. We can fix this problem but you need a politicians honest enough to refuse the allure of big money.


Since you're a former republican, can you try to help me understand or at least explain the viewpoint I bring up in post #11 about conservatives and social programs?

[FormerRepublican]

32. Sure, I'll give it a shot.

First off, I don't agree with them, obviously. But there are a number of views that contribute to their desire to see the end of ALL social programs, including Social Security. Different people have different views that lead to their lack of support, but I'll go over some of them so you can get an idea of their mind set (wrong though it is).

First, they REALLY believe in personal responsibility. You should take care of yourself and never expect anyone to help you, including the government. If you want help from anyone, you're a monster. The anti-social-support-network faction. I believe that a lot of these ideas come from old pioneer habits in frontier days when your neighbor could shoot you as easily as help you, and survival depended on self-reliance. Texas is an example of a place where this view is popular.

Second, some are over-reacting to the abuses in social programs in the past. They REALLY don't like the idea of someone taking their money when they're just lazy and don't want to work, or they're scamming the system. The 'Why should I pay my hard earned money to someone lazy to sit around and have kids, especially when I'm not so well off myself' crowd.

Third, some feel the government can't be trusted to run such programs and private charities can do much better. They'd like to see churches run poverty programs, for example. (A lot of churches don't like this idea when they're inundated because of a lack of government programs when they get no added charitable contributions to offset the taxes the government doesn't collect to support the poor, but that's another story). This is the 'government is too big and bad and should cease to exist' crowd.

Fourth are the guys who just plain don't get it. These are the 'let them eat cake' crowd who think the poor wouldn't be poor if they would just go out and get a job.

Fifth are the guys who like to hoard money and think that any money the government gets from them for any reason is theft.

Sixth are the semi-rational types who are just worried about the deficit and think social programs are bankrupting us. I'm not sure how they feel about what Bush has done in bankrupting us while supporting conservative causes. This is the 'have some fiscal sense before you cause a financial crash' crowd. I have more sympathy with these folk, although I think they're misguided in thinking that social programs bankrupt the government more than corporate welfare.

There are probably a couple of other philosophies, but those are the biggies. IMO, there really is a BIG, BIG problem with a lack of compassion for others within the Republican Party, although they would argue ad naseum all the reasons why that isn't true. But they really do flat out not care about the poor, period. They see them as a drain on society. That includes the disabled, and anyone else who can't go out and make a big buck for society. No lie, these guys think it was wrong for the government to do anything to alleviate the starvation and suffering during the Great Depression, and they see Government actions during that time frame to be the worst thing that ever happened to this country - ever. Some, if they could get away with it, would happily euthanize people who don't pull in their share of cash because they're perceived as a burden to these whack jobs. They are hard core creeps. Despite their loud braying about Teri Schiavo, they have no value for human life whatsoever. Put Teri on the government dole, and they'd line up to pull the plug. No doubt they checked her insurance status before they went out picketing. :sarcasm:

[thoughtanarchist]

34. Great line there...

"Put Teri on the government dole, and they'd line up to pull the plug."

:spray:

If self-reliance is so highly valued for these folks, why the big press for the ever-increasing defense budget? Wouldn't the personal responsibility types be more willing to defend their own town with their own gun than pay what amounts to the single biggest slice of every tax dollar they cannot bear to part with?

I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I'm learning stuff so bear with me...

[FormerRepublican]

36. Oh, they want to do that, too.

NO ONE comes between a Republican and his gun. Republican women are as likely to own and use guns as men.

I think the defense thing probably has something to do with the 'no one better take mine' mantra. If you collect a lot of $$$ or property, you want to keep it, and if you can't rely on anyone else to help you, you want to have guns. So they'd support defense to make sure someone with more guns (fully-automatic?) can't come in and take their stuff. And I think they genuinely like the military, which is not a bad thing. Wars are not the military's fault. The military would still be happily doing military exercises in the US if Bush hadn't gone mad and sent them all to Iraq.

[thoughtanarchist]

38. Well there's the paradox of self reliance...

I have no problem with guns. Our constitution is clear on our rights.
I have no problem with the military. They're necessary and appreciated and they promote a culture of honor... and we should reciprocate that honor by deploying troops only when there is a real danger. But our standing forces are nowhere near commensurate with the amount of money we spend on defense. All the while they're cutting back on vets benefits.

We're getting bilked, all of us, even most conservatives, and it seems like it's just some mystical ideology that keeps most of these folks voting against their own interests. Like religious faith. If there is any rational sense to be made of their way of thinking I have yet to find it...

My WALFTA (World At Large Free Trade Agreement) would dictate that if you are a multinational corporation with a US presence, you should be responsible for adhering to the minimum standards of US labor laws at all business locations, foreign and domestic.

If that offends the sensibilities of the "Free Traders", note that any corporation would have the option not to compete in the US market. Free trade means you're free to stay out of the world's largest market if you're not interested in providing fair labor.

I think WALFTA would end this "Immigration Crisis" pretty quickly because it would improve the standard of living everywhere instead of reducing it here. It may also even the playing field for workers and end our hemorrhaging of jobs by balancing out the cost of labor.

:7

[FormerRepublican]

39. Probably part of it has to do with the corruption in the 'puke party.

And don't forget Cheney himself was SecDef and in deep with Defense Contractors. I used to respect Cheney at one time - I never thought he'd end up crooked. Funny how your opinion changes about someone when you learn more about them.

[thoughtanarchist]

40. very true.

Positions, and very rightly so, change as the circumstances warrant. That's what I thought was so plain silly about "flip-flopping", and how that brought Kerry down as a media assault.

(almost as silly as getting taken out of the primaries by an audio track where your scream is isolated from the background noise and plastered all over the world but that is kinda more frightening and outrageous than silly)

[thoughtanarchist]

11. you make another point I'd like to consider

As far as foreign aid:

I have no problem with the US providing foreign aid when / where it is needed, but we should absolutely be taking care of our own first.

It is typically a conservative viewpoint (the myth of the self-made man) that holds that no tax $$ should go to offer a helping hand to those in need.

For some inane reason I have yet to get a good explanation for, Pell Grants, WIC, welfare, energy assistance, and just about all our social programs (including social security) are offensive, evil and ridiculous to the conservative mind.

Of course most conservatives use these programs and have done so since birth, so their argument is still a mystery to me.

Meanwhile a 400 billion a year defense budget is applauded and seen as "strong on defense".

Sorta like the difference between getting a security system for your house vs. building a moat filled with boiling oil and spending every last dime of your income keeping the oil hot while your house itself falls into disrepair and your family goes hungry.

:wtf:

[blondeatlast]

30. Love the analogy in the last line! Pretty accurate. nt

[thoughtanarchist]

31. Thanks!

That issue is something that hs always boggled me. Even though I debate RW-ers pretty frequently it's not actual debate. They usually just engauge in ranting, name-calling, and obfustication without explaining the benefit or logic behind a viewpoint that they hold most dear.

:eyes:

[AJH032]

2. agreed n/t

[Celeborn Skywalker]

3. I agree.

I think the best thing we can do to address this problem is jail and fine the hell out of the employers who exploit the undocumented workers.

[thoughtanarchist]

5. ding ding!

10 points for gryffindor!

[blondeatlast]

17. If only we would--but--I live in AZ. It'll never happen.

The industries that are the worst offenders-- travel, construction, food service, janitorial== hold too much sway over lobbyists.

It's easily the simplest answer, and I embrace it fully, but it'll never happen. Even if enforced, the big resorts around here will never be raided. My favorite little taco stand will be raided regularly, but TW Homes? Hell, no. The Arizona Biltmore; Ponte Hilton Resorts? Not a chance.

As long as the promise of a job awaits, the issue is one of humanity vs. law.

Sorry, but I choose humanity.

[thoughtanarchist]

19. "It'll never happen"

That's why WE'RE here.

It should be obvious. K street needs to be taken apart brick by brick, the pieces scattered to the 4 corners of the earth, and the site well salted so that nothing ever grows there again!

The McCain-Feingold bill was just pussyfooting around the real issue. It's not just campaigns that need to be surgically removed from the corporate interest dollars, the entire govt (house, senate, local, top to bottom) needs to be removed from the corporate IV.

Until that happens we will always be choosing the "lesser of two evils".

[blondeatlast]

20. True, but that's a long, long, long time coming.

In the meantime, I see too much scapegoating regarding EVERY issue, not just this one.

It's the fault of a dieased system and I hate seeing it shouldered on the backs of desperate people, regardless of the issue involved.

We're ALL desperate, even the ones who don't realize it yet.

[thoughtanarchist]

25. VERY true. This is another wedge "hot button" issue.

likely left un-addressed deliberately for the purpose of the division it provides.

It unifies the RW-ers because they like the idea of teaming up with the jackbooted "minutemen" to shoot them some "ferners".

:puke: (God, the name itself is such blasphemy considering the REAL minutemen were revolutionaries and the architects of our nation)

It's divisive for us because we're the ones who actually seek to SOLVE problems and the best, simplest method is near impossible while the robber barons have this stranglehold on our democracy.

I would never let this issue get between my vote and a candidate who seeks positive, healthy, progressive change no matter what position the candidate happens to hold re: immigration.

:patriot:

[John Q. Citizen]

7. i have news for you. The Government doesn't care about you or

Mexican illegals.

However, since the Government does care about corporate contributions, and corporations care about a captive cheap work force, well, you get the idea.

That is what's behind the open borders initiatives.

On the other hand, I personally think we should "Tear down that wall, Mr. Former Republican."

All the data shows that illegals contribute way more to the economy than they take out. This surplus could be used to help America's poor, but it isn't. Helping America's poor would require the desire and commitment of our leaders. We could totally cut off all illegals from crossing, but that wouldn't necessarily translate to helping Americas poor.

Most people from Mexico see the US as a good place to work, but would rather live in Mexico. If people could come and go, they would come to the US to work, and return to Mexico to live (kind of like commuting from the suburbs to the city to work.)

If my family were starving and I could find a job to support them in Mexico, no law would stop me from trying to save my family. In fact my family was starving when they emigrated here from Ireland.

Anyway, that's how I feel. I'm just not that upset about having people from a foreign country come here in search of survival. It's the American way.

[FormerRepublican]

13. There's a part of the scenario you're missing, though.

That's the competition for jobs, and who gets affected.

It's happened in the past, of course. I think it was the Irish who objected to the use of Chinese immigrants when the railroads were being built in the 1800s. Our government and our ideals were much more primative then. Pretty much everyone was poor, the government did absolutely nothing for the poor until the Great Depression, but the poor were not vilified like they are now. People who worked for companies were at the mercy of those companies, the companies generally had no regard for their workers' welfare and frequently killed or injured them, then just hired more. When the jobs were really dangerous and no one else would do them, they hired the Chinese. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

When labor is plentiful, workers have a harder time protecting their interests, up to and including their health and welfare. Open borders increases the number of laborers, reducing the ability of workers to protect their rights. I'm sure any illegal immigrant can give you a good rundown on the effects of having no worker rights.

There's also the matter of security and crime to be considered. It's not just poor people who want to come in illegally. It's MS-13, drug runners, terrorists, and who knows who else. The Mexican coyotes are big business.

Open immigration is selectively enforced. For example, despite the height of the holocaust, Jews were denied entry to the US in WWII. We're not sending boats to Africa and loading them up with cheap labor.

We're in the process of turning back the clock to the bad old days of our nation, when the poor starved and lived in homeless camps. We could end up in company towns, virtually enslaved through debt to the corporate entity. It's happened before.

He who does not learn from history is destined to repeat it. Some of our country's worker history is pretty horrifying. We're in the process of repeating the worst parts of our history.

Part of the question has to be whether or not the policies we're implementing are making our country and our society better. Whether the borders are open or closed plays favorites, the only difference is who gets favored. Since I'm American, I prefer to favor Americans. I also prefer to not artificially inflate the number of American workers so that worker rights are diluted.

All policy has consequences, including a policy of open borders. Are you certain that the consequences of an open border are what you really want?

[European Socialist]

10. I agree.

The problem will probably be solved in a few years when we are just as poor as them-and they won't bother coming North anymore.

[blondeatlast]

12. It's a VERY complicated issue for me. I wish they wouldn't come.

I wish they didn't feel it necessary. But I have known many "illegal: immigrants, and what they are fleeing is so horrific they risk life and limb in untold ways to get here.

I don't lobby for undocumented workers, but I feel tremendous empathy for them.

We need to go after the businesses that hire them, not punish those that do work, do pay sales taxes, and do contibute.

It's far too complicated an issue for just closing the borders to fix. That's why I get upset.

Anyway, my home sits on what was originally theirs--I never forget that fact.

[FormerRepublican]

21. That's another thing that bothers me...

You said:

"Anyway, my home sits on what was originally theirs--I never forget that fact."

A lot of Mexican nationals say that Utah used to belong to Mexico, so they have some right to it and the borders should stay open to them for that reason (and also that it should revert to Mexico or be a separate nation). My family happened to be pioneers in Utah and I have a number of early diaries. No Mexican nationals living in Utah. Lots of Indians, though, to whom they used to give bread. The Indians still live here. In addition, the US PAID Mexico for the land that is now a part of the US at the end of the Mexican-American war. Nice of them to renig on the deal because their economy is bad. I guess France will step up next to take back the Louisiana Purchase.

Mexico itself was expansionist (part of the goals of the Spanish conquest), and their claims to portions of the US were based more on Spanish philosophies than actual residence. Long distance travel used to be very arduous, and families often lived in the same place for generations without ever moving anywhere. The Indians were migratory, but not over extensive distances. Not the thousand miles from Mexico to Utah, for example, but a more local area. It was the Conquistadors who used land grants to increase their holdings by encouraging settlement, and in my opinion that has no more moral weight on a claim to land than the economic and political pressures that forced European settlers to immigrate.

I think we need to be careful when claims are made about land based on who lived where when. Unless you want to leave the US completely and live somewhere else, since it all belonged to the Native Americans anyway.

We can't dismantle countries because of past wrongs. It destabilizes the world and doesn't really help anyone. It was the poverty, oppression and starvation of our own ancestors that drove them to settle here in the first place.

I, too, feel compassion for those who are impoverished. But we, as a nation, have to have priorities. Why do we think it's OK to make our own citizens come last? I also do feel that the Mexican government has some responsibility here. They can be taking action to improve their economy. There's nothing inherently different between Mexicans and Americans that makes us rich and them poor - it's not a poverty gene. They're as capable of improving their economy as we are. I don't think the solution is to export their economic problems here, any more than I think it would be right to hand over our problems with terrorism to Mexico to solve.

And I do feel that as long as we're Mexico's pressure release valve, they will lack the political will to address the problem.

[blondeatlast]

26. Interesting that that is the quote you pick out, though.

It's an easy talking point for both sides.

But solving the problem isn't an easy talking point. It's political, economic, humanitarian, familial, religious, and so on.

I would make the argument that the Mexican government has no desire whatsoever to do anything and simply cannot be pressured to ehlp prevent it. It pays ENORMOUS dividends for them. That's why I consider them political refugees, as well as economic--their giovernment is more than happy to be rid of them.

I'm willing to welcome "the tired and poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free," period. I know for many that is simply an unfathomable idea, but I am a humanitarian at heart.

Again, if Lady Liberty looked out over the sonoran desert instead of Manhattan, I think people would feel a bit differently.

I'm of fourth generation Irish ancestry--my great grandparents would have some empathy with what the Mexican immigrants face.

[PeachyDem88]

14. Absolutely.

It's time the Democrats got macho on border (and port) security. There's an economic side to the immigration issue, and we should stress it as well, but we need to make the case that the Republicans have left America open to attack. That terrorists will start showing up on the border. That no one is looking after the shop. And that WE will.

New Mexico's Governor (a Democrat) is handling immigration the right way. He's cracking down AND distancing himself from the racist groups advocating immigration control. All the while, he talks up LEGAL immigration.

[blondeatlast]

24. The Dem governors along the border are going to be the catalyst

for answers to the problem.

Napolitano is sticking it to the Feds to make them pay for undocs who are imprisoned in the state pens.

The problem is that so many anti-immigration groups have racist undertones. It makes it an emotionally charged issue, just like abortion, so it's very hard not to pick a team, so to speak.

[Telly Savalas]

15. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...

yearning to be free"

Should we just wipe those words off the Statue of Liberty? When I hear them, they make me proud to be an American.

I can't speak for those who want to completely open the borders, because I'm not one of them. I do however strongly believe in normalizing our immigration policies in a manner which would let a lot more people legally settle and work in the United States.

Blaming the poverty of U.S. citizens on Mexicans is total bullshit and only distracts from the real problems our country faces. With adequate social services and programs, a universal healthcare system, and proper living wage laws, we could go a long ways towards alleviating poverty in the United States. The Republicans have avoided these things in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy, and the Democrats have only been doing a half-assed effort at combatting this.

Quit blaming the Mexicans and start blaming the conservatives.

[blondeatlast]

18. Well, Emma Lazarus wasn't thinking about the Mexicans, :sarcasm:

I wonder if it might change things if Lady Liberty looked out over the high Sonoran desert instead of Manhattan.

[Yupster]

42. The Statue of Liberty looks over Ellis Island

where the immigrants came in legally, were documented and legalized before they were allowed to enter the rest of the country. If the quota from that country was filled, the people were turned around and sent back home to wait for next year's openings.

[FormerRepublican]

27. I think the problem we're working with here is numbers...

There are 300 Million Americans. There are 6 BILLION people living in the world, most in poverty. A major chunk of them would love to immigrate to the US. The US is a large country, but not big enough to hold or sustain all the poor people of the world who might have their poverty alleviated through immigration.

Some control is essential and necessary.

However, if immigration is illegal (versus legal), then control is impossible. The immigration pipe widens and more and more people flow through. This can't go on indefinately without dire consequences to our country.

If you want to see the effects of that kind of population growth, take a little visit to China and India. You'll get a good view of our future.

The issue can't be ignored because big business wants a payday. We can't hide our heads in the sand because we're afraid someone might get hurt. If we do nothing, the someone who gets hurt will inevitably be us.

WRT poverty in the US - well, when you go and ask your boss for a raise when there are 500 other people he can hire who can do your job, what does he say to you? Does the sound of his laughter sound about right?

[Maple]

16. Because you can't close them

With 2 borders and 2 seacoasts you can't keep people out.

No country can.

Not even the Berlin Wall worked as a way to stop determined people.

[blondeatlast]

28. I took a minor liberty with MS Word and your OP.

There's something I don't understand, and I think it will probably get me flamed.

Why should the US have open borders with Britain? I know that the economic situation is bad and people are suffering in Britain. The economic situation in the US is bad and I'M suffering.

The US government and Americans are not responsible for the welfare of Irish citizens. Their government and their communities are. Britain is not responsible for us, nor do I expect them to take any responsibility for us. There are a lot of people in Britain who are a lot richer than I am. Britain and the US are not the same country, nor can one country be responsible for the citizens of both. Our government needs to be working to resolve our problems, and Britain's government needs to be working to resolve theirs. We can't support and provide economic prosperity for the entire world. Rich though this country is, even the assets of the richest among us are not enough to offset the endless poverty that fills the world. And the rich in America are the few, not the many.

If you're American, I don't care what color you are, your origins, how much money you have, or what language you speak. You have all the rights and responsibilities that I do, equal in every way. If you're not a citizen, then I don't want you here unless you're legal. I certainly don't want you if you're a criminal using the border as a way to escape punishment for your crimes.

Crass as it sounds, I feel this way because Americans are suffering, and no one cares about OUR future or OUR suffering. I guess they're too busy lobbying for Irish. Every time I hear that we should allow the poor in Britain to immigrate to alleviate their problems it feels like a slap in the face to America's poor, who no one cares about. And I feel unequal because I think the government cares more about Irish from Britain than they care about me.

1 in 10 Irish citizens live in the US, many of them illegally (I think I read that on MSNBC, I forget). For everyone who advocates opening the borders wide open because of Irish poverty, then I need to remind you about American poverty that goes unaddressed. And it's not the rich who suffer from unlimited illegal immigration - it's the poor. Irish compete for jobs at the low end where the poor toil and struggle to find jobs - not in the educated realms of high paying jobs. But no one cares about America's poor - they only care about citizens of other countries.

I think that's wrong.

I don't see a whole lot of difference in the arguments used to seal off the ports from the Irish during the potato famine...

[FormerRepublican]

35. I think...

...the difference between then and now is in numbers and modern economics. US population was fairly low at the time of Irish immigration, and said immigration did have impact on US life - thus the objections at the time. Who's to say that what they did then was in the best interests of the US? They used to keep slaves down south back then, too, but I don't advocate that today! Not that I'm saying open immigration is comparable to slavery - I'm making the point that historic reasoning was not always the best guide to follow, nor did it conform to modern values.

Heh - you're starting to sound non-interventionist Republican. ;)

I think a good analagy would be witnessing a crime with extenuating circumstances. Let's say I see someone break into my neighbor's house and steal his TV to sell because the thief is poor and he needs to pay the electric bill. I, as an observer, can either sympathize with the thief because he's poor, or I can stop a crime in progress. What should I decide? If I do nothing, the thief is marginally better off, but my innocent neighbor is harmed by having his TV stolen when he wasn't the cause of the thief's poverty or his actions. If I intervene, I help my neighbor protect his possessions, but someone impoverished may not pay his bills this month. My decision ultimately lies with who I feel more concern for. Neither choice addresses the underlying problem that caused the thief to steal. I would personally choose to help my neighbor. You would choose to help the thief. The best solution, however, would be for the government to help the thief so he's not so impoverished that he's forced to steal. If we can't get the government to address the underlying problem, then all we have is the choice of what to do about the thief. Does that make sense?

The solution to this problem lies with Mexico, not us. But the only thing you or I can do is decide whether to help the illegal immigrant or our neighbors trying to get a job.

[blondeatlast]

41. Well, friend; my neighbors are often what I presume are undocs.

On several occasions, the rental house next door has been home to a few of them. They are quiet, keep the yard clean, and no bother whatsoever--they are terrified of the police being called.

I can't think of any job they've taken that has displeced an American worker--I live in a Right to Work state, and therefore able-bodied construction workers and the type don't want to work construction becuase of the heat and the pitiful pay. It ain't the illegals doing that, guy, it's the legislature.

When one of my neighbors was able to bring his wife and child here, we celebrated together. I saw the beam come across his face when she stepped out of the car--you just don't forget those kind of moments.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't particularly care if they come here to escape economic oppression. Period.

If we close the border to Mexico, let's just tear down that statue in NY harbor, IMHO.

My ancestors came over during the potato famine and my grands could regale us with stories of what they went through--and the names they were called.

I just don't see a lot of difference here.

We aren't going to agree on this.

[Yupster]

44. One of the people I work with told me that he

was an illegal alien, though he's now legal.

He owns his own business and has three employees, so three other families depend on his talents.

He is a good man and a positive person for his community and his country, which is America.

I don't think anyone is saying illegal immigrants are bad people.

The argument is that a country has a right to determine and controll who is allowed to enter it.

That certainly seems like common sense to me.

[johnnyrocket]

33. The dems could make HUGE gains if they portrayed COMMON SENSE

....immigration policies. Namely, the unfettered mass migration of Central Americans under no control or regulation is totally OUT of control, and overwhelming all of our social systems. The GOP is sold out to big business, who wants the slave labor, but there's 10-20 points in polls many dems could gain if they brought these issues up.

Plus is NOT a racial, minority, nor Hispanic negative! IT'S NOT! First generation immigrants agree with stronger immigration policies as much as natives.

[Booster]

37. No flame here. I totally agree with you, and I suppose that's what

makes me a moderate Dem rather than a liberal Dem. I have posted before than illegal alliens in this country send back 8 BILLION DOLLARS to Mexico EVERY year. Do the math. If they are working for minimum wage or below, pay for housing/food here, then we are really being lied to about how many there really are. Between the free medical benefits, free schooling and not being reimbursed by the federal government for some of them being in our jails, California is suffering from the burden of the illegals. We have had many, many hospitals close their ERs because they can't afford to keep them open so that takes away what our own citizens had. If we have laws about illegals why aren't they being enforced. I know, they do the work that we don't want to do. Yeah, right. If the employers were forced to follow the laws and pay what they should there would be Americans that would take the jobs - I don't buy that argument one bit. Illegals benefit themselves and the rich. Now, flame me.

[1932]

43. Because I get one life on this planet, and I'd like to go where I please.

[Yupster]

45. I think you hit the basic argument

People are born where they are completely by the throw of the dice.

One person has just as much right to live somewhere as anyone else. Borders should be meaningless.

[FormerRepublican]

46. Oh, really?

Then please tell me why open borders should be unidirectional.

Read this link about procedures to immigrate to Mexico (and note that immigrants are NOT allowed to work in Mexico).

"Planning to work while you're in Mexico? It can be done, but there are stringent rules. One variant of the FM-3, valid only for renewable 6-month periods, sponsored by the employer, will enable a foreigner to work for that employer only and only in the areas specified in the immigration document. The applicant must have needed skills that are not met in the workforce, and the FM-3 working status is contingent upon continued employment by the sponsoring employer. When the job ends, so too does the FM-3. In these situations, the employer generally assumes responsibility for handling the legal work."

http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/jrrimmig.html

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[1932]

47. I don't think it should be unidirectional. I think Mexico is making a

mistake too.