American problems and solutions

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist


I doubt that that is true. What evidence do you have for that? Does you figure include illegal immigration? Illegal iommigration makes up a large chunk of U.S. immigration, and is probably not figured in to that number.

I can't find the figures for the most recent period in the US (1991-2001) but in Canada in that same period we received 1.83 million immigrants

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/etoimm/tables/canada/period.cfm

For the US to have a similar rate of immigration it would have to have accepted ~17 million immigrants between 1991 and 2001

For an overall comparison:

http://www.rapidimmigration.com/usa/1_eng_immigration_facts.html

The foreign-born population of the US is 8.5 percent of the total population (in 1990). This can be compared to the 1990's proportions of 22.7 in Australia; 16 percent in Canada; 6.3 in France; 7.3 in Germany; 3.9 percent in Great Britain; and 5.7 in Sweden.

Though the volume of illegal immigrants is difficult to estimate, its estimated through a consensus of methods, that the number is approximately 3.2 million, lowered by the amnesty of 1987-1988, but not very different from the previous decade. The rate of illegal immigrants is agreed by experts to be about 250,000 to 300,000 per year. More than half of illegal immigrants enter the US legally and overstay their visas.

3.2 million would only bring the foreign born population of the US by 1% (to 9.5%)

But again, I suppose perception is what matters, and the US is swarming in illegals....

[Sava]

and the US is swarming in illegals

you have no idea! I'm knee deep in illegals over here!

I'd like to point out that the 9-11 terrorists were all here legally... and that illegal immigrants, especially hispanic illegals... haven't commited a terrorist act against the US and don't present a threat to the national security. If anything, they allow rich people to have well-manicured lawns, and the food service industry a source of cheap labor. No American is going to work for 2 bucks an hour... Americans don't want to pay 2 or 3 times more for goods and services that utilize cheap labor... and these illegals are making more money than they would be making in their native country. I don't see the downside, and whatever downside may exist, I certainly don't see it worth the expense (money and human lives) to try and deport them all.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Sava

I'd like to point out that the 9-11 terrorists were all here legally

A point that I've addressed

... and that illegal immigrants, especially hispanic illegals... haven't commited a terrorist act against the US and don't present a threat to the national security.

Regardless, they are breaking the law by being here.

If anything, they allow rich people to have well-manicured lawns, and the food service industry a source of cheap labor.

Seems to me like those areas are good places for U.S. teenagers to work to keep themselves out of trouble and make some extra money. Teens will work for minimum wage, because in most cases they are just earning spending money.

No American is going to work for 2 bucks an hour

And no non-American should work for that wage in America, either. It undercuts the American worker.

... Americans don't want to pay 2 or 3 times more for goods and services that utilize cheap labor...

God forbid that someone actualy do something legal and hire people for minimum wage to do menial chores. As I said, plenty of teens would enjoy an oppurtunity to make some extra spending money, and quality of service would increase if the people at fast food restaurants could understand what the customer is saying.

and these illegals are making more money than they would be making in their native country.

Maybe they should stay in their country and try to improve it, rather than rush up here. What good is a President who actually tells his people to illegaly immigrate to another country just so he doesn't have to. (President Fox)?

I don't see the downside, and whatever downside may exist, I certainly don't see it worth the expense (money and human lives) to try and deport them all.

Downsides: deprives Americans of jobs, creates a slave culture in a prominent sub group of people, a group that is easily identifiable and may develop grudges against the people who are exploiting them, blatant violation of U.S. sovereignty, blatant violation of labor laws that workers have been fighting for for a hundred years.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Sava
How do you prove somebody is illegal or not?

Legal immigrants & citizens are cataloged, illegal immigrants are not.

What about if this illegal immigrant has children born in the US?

If the children are youner than 18, send them back with their parents.

What if there is a large family, how do you choose who to deport if some are legal immigrants?

Send back the illegal ones.

And personally, I don't think we should be turning America into a battlefield just to fight resisting illegal immigrants. If illegals fight back and are killed, how do you justify their deaths?

Violently resisting the police. These types of deaths happen every day. If they don't want to be killed, then don't fight back.

And how do you justify saying that amnesty would encourage illegal immigration.

Do some research on Reagan's Amnesty and its effects.

The front door of the US reads "Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yurning to be free..." Don't you think that is what encourages people to come to the US?

Nope. They come here to make money, not because of the Statue of Liberty. Mexico may not be rich, but its not exactly oppressive either.

[Sava]

You still haven't addressed the most important point. How do you find illegal immigrants? Do you go door to door to every house in America asking to see their identification? We can't even do an accurate census. We can't even win a war on drugs. How in the world could you possibly think we'll win a war against illegal immigrants?

And do you think American teenagers provide higher quality work? Almost all of the service-industry people who were in your generalization are legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants do the grunt work that nobody wants to do. They work hard and they do it for more money than they would have made in their country. By no means do I think we should grant everyone citizenship. This isn't a black and white issue.

Your proposal would be a massive waste of money, it wouldn't accomplish its goal, and it would create more problems than it would ever hope to solve.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Sava
You still haven't addressed the most important point. How do you find illegal immigrants? Do you go door to door to every house in America asking to see their identification?

This is a valid point. I don't think that there should be a home by home investigation of America. However, we know where the largest concentrations of illegals are. After the INS and ID card structure identifies legal residents and workers. After that, do random inspections of suspect businesses/farms. Undoubtedly, some illegals would fall through the cracks, but in the end a good many would be repatriated. As a bonus, legal Latinos will be able to hold jobs without being stereotyped as illegal aliens, and that will do much to allieviate current grievences.

We can't even win a war on drugs.

I think that my ideas of how we could better control our borders would go a long way in winning the war on drugs. Combine that with legalization of Marijuana, and we won't have to worry as much about a 'war on drugs'

And do you think American teenagers provide higher quality work? Almost all of the service-industry people who were in your generalization are legal immigrants.

In my idea, those legal immigrants will be able to get a decent job in a factory. Besides, teenagers don't do that bad of a job in fast food service. Why are you so skeptical about that?

Illegal immigrants do the grunt work that nobody wants to do. They work hard and they do it for more money than they would have made in their country.

For those illegals that do us a valuable service (i.e. Migrant Fruit Harvesters) I suggest that we regester them as frequent visitors. That way we know who they are and where they came from, they don't have to risk their lives in a dangerous border crossing, and they can be ensured minimum wage, which would be far mor than they could get at home. We'd just have to make sure that they went back home after harvest season.

Your proposal would be a massive waste of money, it wouldn't accomplish its goal, and it would create more problems than it would ever hope to solve.

I don't think that it would waste any more money than we already are wasting in other areas. My goal is to have a country in which we know who is visiting and who is living here. This includes visitors of all races and creeds. How many of the 9/11 terrorists were here on expired student visas or something else like that? This would help to solve that problem. All guests would be required to report to their local courthouse once a month. If they skip two meetings they will be searched out and deported.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Frogger
3.2 million would only bring the foreign born population of the US by 1% (to 9.5%)

I addressed these issues a few pages back with info from the 2000 census.

[KrazyHorse]

No you didn't.

"Entering" is not the same as "staying".

The illegal population at any one time is no bigger than 3.2 million.

Other countries, like Canada and Australia take much more immigration than you do. The "immigrant problem" in the US is fictitious.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Frogger
No you didn't.


The illegal population at any one time is no bigger than 3.2 million.

Other countries, like Canada and Australia take much more immigration than you do.

They don't take in as many illegal immigrants as the U.S. does. That is what I am against. The problem is compunded when you take into account the fact that the migrants are concentrated in a few areas, not dispersed across the nation.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Frogger
"Entering" is not the same as "staying".

Entering and leaving illegaly is just as bad, if not worse, than staying illegaly. Some of these people are undoubtedly trafficing drugs. Besides, the pourous system allows people other than migrant workers to come in. Border control will go a long way in preventing terror.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm sorry, where's the argument? I can't see through the clouds of rhetoric, without even a logical backing.

Takes a brain.

In what perverse universe do both people become unemployed when a job moves from the US to, say, China? I'm missing that link.

That's not what I said. You misunderstood the original point, which was not that people from some countries had a greater entitlement to employment than others, but that starting bidding wars between countries with good employment laws and those with none results (if the country with decent laws relaxes them to compete) in the abolition of jobs with decent working conditions. Hence, no good jobs for any poor folks.

I'm not arguing that labour laws should be relaxed. It's not my responsibility if other countries have poor labour laws. I certainly don't think we should export jobs to countries where the government forces people to work. I think they should go to countries where people work there if they want to...

This is risible - if capital flows freely then it can effectively bypass labour laws by forcing bidding wars amongst different countries who will then attempt to lower their labour standards to attract foreign capital. This is basic economics - I don't see why you don't understand. What you are effectively suggesting is that we employ people in countries like Malaysia in sweatshop conditions, knowing full well that if they try to organise to force better working conditions they will be suppressed by the state.

Hey, at least I have something to fall back on. This is all you have, and it's rather sad.

I suggest you fall back on yours and stop wasting everyones time.

Are you this tw4tish to everyone or could you enter an argument trying to be civil for once? Are you jealous of me), yes, that must be it.

You must be joking. You are about the rudest person on the forum and the one with the biggest opinion of himself. And the person who seems to bicker for the sake of it. After all when you start losing you just respond with repeated postings of the proposition in dispute and boastings of how you have "proved" your point. All in all it's a bit juvenile.

[ranskaldan]

I can't believe so many people are supporting isolationist policies. Isolationism is the world's biggest superpower-killer.

(Well, and arrogance too, which is related to isolationism).

First, to refute a much harangued point - that pulling MNC's out of poorer countries is somehow saving their labourers from hell, I'll requote something I've stated in another thread:

This is where I disagree. Of course conditions may be appalling by Western standards, but what are the alternatives?

There are hundreds of millions - literally - of migrant workers who come out of the rural areas looking for work in the urban areas. That is with tight control over internal population migrations. Most of those people would have been peasants back home, tilling over-worked, desalinated land and starving. Either that or they have to go into the coal mines. This is not funny at all. Every week there is an explosion in some mine or the other than kills 40 people in a sitting.

In the meantime, there are thousands of laidoff workers milling the streets of Chinese cities looking for work, the victims of privatization who were originally working in outdated, inefficient state-owned enterprises. They often end up selling fruits - or worse (picking batteries and toxic computer parts, for instance). These two taken together - laidoff workers and migrant peasants - is a vast nightmare of hardship, and, together with that, crime.

And you're proposing that we lay off the ones who've actually found work already, in the cities, in textiles factories??

Okay, so now that is out of the way.

Isolationism kills superpowers because:

a) Superpowers control the world to its own benefit by having links all over the place. Sure, you may depend on Middle Eastern oil. But Middle Eastern countries depend on the West for their economies. This gives significant leverage to the West in world affairs.

Why are there Muslims countries at all who, despite popular resentment, continue to support US policies? What exactly keep upstart powers (China, India) from doing something brash (e.g. invade a neighbour)?

The answer is quite simple. The U.S. would sanction their economies into hell. But the only reason why the U.S. can do that is because of the trade links that exist in the first place. If 1/10 of the Chinese economy weren't made up of Western investments, would China care about sanctions at all?

b) Superpowers keep ahead of the world through interdependence.

Open, porous borders keep superpowers informed about the happenings of the world. More importantly, it keeps superpowers under constant pressure to compete against foreigners. There is no such pressure if prohibitive tariffs are erected along the borders.

c) Superpowers keep the peace through common interest.

This is quite related to point a) above. Countries with more common interest are much less likely to fight wars. After all, why would I attack someone who provides 10% of my economy? But if this 10% is removed, then I would have everything to gain to force the doors of that country open.

But in addition, peace is kept in the world through many other ways as well. Free trade creates new affluent societies, in South Korea and Singapore, for instance. Free trade keeps the economies of many third world countries afloat. Free trade keeps information flowing into third world countries to reduce ignorance and provincialism. And if you're thinking: what the hell has third world countries have to do with me, the answer is: all of the above makes the world a safer place for America to live in. It keeps America relatively safe from the fury of the poorer world; and it converts the poor into the rich, killing the fury along with it.


Hence, isolationism is suicide. Global trade keeps the peace, keeps nations functional, and keeps people alive.

[Ramo]

Dal:

That doesn't speak much of international aid.

It really is a fairly large amount. Developing countries get about $60 billion in remittances annually.

I don't have any number either.

Actually, I do have numbers (now).
From an Economist article from November (if you have access to old Economist articles, it's "The View From Afar"):
"A recent survey by AnnaLee Saxenian for the Public Policy Institute of California of more than 1,500 first-generation Indian and Chinese migrants found that "brain circulation" is a more appropriate way to describe what is happening to these groups in Silicon Valley than "brain drain". Of those surveyed, 50% go back at least once a year to their home country on business, and 5% return at least five times a year. Even more telling, 74% of Indian respondents and 53% of Chinese ones said they hoped to start a business back home."

What I do have is the stories of the people I know, and stories from the community, generally.

I have stories too. For instance, a couple of my cousins just visited me over Christmas. They recently came over to the US to get educations (one wants to be an economist, the other a doctor). They both told me that they wanted to go back to Bangladesh after completing their educations. And this is the poorest country in the world, mind you. I could tell you a number of similar stories if you want.

nat:

B.S. This would merely bring the standard of living in the developing world down to a third world level, especially if the Libertarian ideal of "no minimum" wage is implemented.

This is pure crap. Immigrants create huge amounts of jobs. They create demand for goods and services. They create businesses with human capital in need domestically. They fill necessary jobs that "natives" aren't willing to do. If you kick out illegal immigrants, the economies of California and Texas would collapse.

Yet we haven't always had semi-official bi-lingualism. Older immigrants forced their children to learn English and assimilate into the culture. Now we bend over backwards to accomidate people who don't want to learn the language.

Immigrants do force their children to learn English. If you haven't noticed, public schools still teach English. If anything, immigrants are learning English more quickly than in earlier periods.

There have always been huge non-English speaking enclaves. The current situation is no different. And no one's forcing you to bend over backward for them. You want them to bend over backward for you. You want them to give up a chance at a better life for your absurd fears of the danger of bilingualism.

It is in the fact that most of it is illegal.

Why does that matter? I consider resistance to totalitarian laws, unjust in the extreme, a beneficial personality quality, not a defect.

It is my business if we have to spend millions of dollars making our government bi-lingual. It is if people in the cities can't effectively read road signs, public postings, etc., and become a danger to the community. It is if a particualr language group beginjs to split off and dominate certain parts of my nation.

Signs and forms? You've gotta be ****ing kidding me. You oppose immigration because you oppose a miniscule increase in public spending due to signs. That's got to be the most assinine reason I've ever heard to oppose immigration. I can guarantee you that the economic cost to the US of your harsh immigration barriers would be far, far, far more than the cost of government signs. Why should I have to pay for your draconian immigration barriers? Why should people who want to move here have to pay for your draconian immigration barriers?

And why does it matter if certain languages dominate certain regions in the country? Mandarin, Yiddish, German, Italian, etc., etc. had always had socioeconomic enclaves throughout the history of the country. Even Spanish was dominant in the South-West immediately following the Mexican War. Again, why is this any of your business?

Well, because some of my anscestors conquered it hundreds of years ago, I was born here, and I pay taxes here.

So? Why does that make you an American any more than they are?

These illegal immigrants violate the sovereignty of the nation's borders

And? Resisting a draconian law is a-ok with me.

and, obviously unregistered, don't pay taxes.

They pay sales taxes, often pay payroll taxes, etc. Given their economic situation, if they were legal they would in general be a burden to the public due to earned income tax credits, welfare, etc. Plus, due to their legal position, they have less bargaining abilities vis a vis their employters, so provide their services for minimal cost to US businesses. This, BTW, is another way in which immigration barriers hurt the American worker (i.e. through artificially depreciating their wages).

They work harder and are more persecuted than people with a more stable legal position. The idea that they are freeloaders is a myth, and an insulting one at that.

Yet these illegals are crying out for public assistance,

Which they don't get. Dealing with the government tends to be a problem due to their illegality.

use public goods, and are causing many problems in our urban centers through gang violence.

Gang violence is due to the drug prohibition. It's a direct result of that sort of policy. So the blame should be directed towards the people who support drug prohibtion.

When my anscestors came "illegaly" into America, they conquered it and made it their own. The immigrants can try and do this, conquering the land through settlement. However, certain people will stand against the violation of our borders and their national sovereignty.

Immigration to improve the lives of themselves and their families is conquest? Aren't you precious?