We need a third party

[Ramo]

Precisely. And the GOP base is ok with them. And forget Romney and Giuliani, even Huckabee and Brownback arent Tancredist on immigration, AFAIK. Ergo, my point, that most GOP voters are NOT Tancredist, and our OP is NOT typical of the GOP base.

But the candidates are at least pretending to be... They wouldn't do that if that weren't where the primary votes are. Make no mistake that there hasn't been a full airing of most of these guys' past immigration views.

The only exception, AFAIK, I think is Huckabee (even McCain has recently embraced "enforcement first").

[Dulaak]

I don't want a debate on elementary ethics; I just want your position on elementary ethics so that I know what sorts of arguments to use to destroy your beliefs.

The law should be broken when a law is unjust, when it favors one group of people over another, when it is unequally enforced. Immigration laws are being broken by a primary group of people, and it is being enforced unequally. Therefore, states and local communities should break the federal laws concerning the enforcement of illegal immigration by the federal government and instead enact their own legislation to deal with a problem the federal government is clearly unwilling to correct. I fully agree with you that some laws should be broken. Thanks for enlightening me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Balkanization fears are overstated. NYC, Chicago, etc. did have some rough spots, but turned out pretty well...

A. I was not just talking about balkanization, but about machine politics. Not the aspect of Italians voting for Italians. The aspect of Italians and Jews and Poles voting for whoever game them favors, and ignoring the larger political culture. Accepting a high level of corruption, etc. This was a huge issue in the US during the turn of the century migration boom.

B. The problems were as limited as they were, cause the total level of immigration was not as high as what we are talking about now, despite the open borders. This was cause i. transportation was more difficult at that time, and more costly relative to wages (AFAIK) ii. World war 1 limited migration for four years iii. After WW1, the open borders policy was dropped and severe immigration controls were instituted.

C. You are aware, I suppose, that during the US participation in WW1, a level of authoritarianism was imposed that make McCarthyism, not to mention the WOT, look like sheer libertarianism. Censorship, arrests of dissidents (for "inspiring draft evasion") closures of German language institutions, etc. The presence of huge numbers of immigrants, several groups of which were assumed by the authorities to be hostile to the war, triggered a great deal of paranoia. Not necessarily all of it unjustified.

That too, is the kind of damage to the polity that can occur.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


But the candidates are at least pretending to be... They wouldn't do that if that weren't where the primary votes are. Make no mistake that there hasn't been a full airing of most of these guys' past immigration views.

The only exception, AFAIK, I think is Huckabee (even McCain has recently embraced "enforcement first").

and I dont think enforcement first is what our OP is calling for. Unless that mean first, last, and only.

[Ramo]

A. I was not just talking about balkanization, but about machine politics. Not the aspect of Italians voting for Italians. The aspect of Italians and Jews and Poles voting for whoever game them favors, and ignoring the larger political culture. Accepting a high level of corruption, etc. This was a huge issue in the US during the turn of the century migration boom.

B. The problems were as limited as they were, cause the total level of immigration was not as high as what we are talking about now, despite the open borders. This was cause i. transportation was more difficult at that time, and more costly relative to wages (AFAIK) ii. World war 1 limited migration for four years iii. After WW1, the open borders policy was dropped and severe immigration controls were instituted.

Tammany Hall was in decline before that boom was stopping (i.e. WWIish). As I wrote above, I'd be willing to make the citizenship process more tied to cultural assimilation and phase the policy in.

Look, you're much more of a nationalist than I am. I really don't think that your concerns are that huge a deal. I think our culture is more resilient than that.

C. You are aware, I suppose, that during the US participation in WW1, a level of authoritarianism was imposed that make McCarthyism, not to mention the WOT, look like sheer libertarianism. Censorship, arrests of dissidents (for "inspiring draft evasion") closures of German language institutions, etc. The presence of huge numbers of immigrants, several groups of which were assumed by the authorities to be hostile to the war, triggered a great deal of paranoia. Not necessarily all of it unjustified.

The vast majority of it was certainly unjustified. So you think the popularity of Tancredo-types is a reason to limit Mexican immigration?

and I dont think enforcement first is what our OP is calling for. Unless that mean first, last, and only.

The point is that enforcement isn't likely to be very effective if it's not part of a comprehensive plan. Enforcement first is effectively enforcement only...

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

That too, is the kind of damage to the polity that can occur.

A polity that existed because of open borders.