We need a third party

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dulaak
I'm not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal immigrant. Ironically, there are many hispanics and other immigrants who came here legally who are not for open borders either. Only a small percentage of the population are for letting anyone and everyone in. The only reason they are open are because large corporations depend on illegal immigrants for cheap wages because they can basically treat them like dirt and get away with it..

They are NOT open. Open borders would mean anyone could walk through at the proper crossings. Not pay a coyote, or risk dying of thirst in desert. Not to mention occasionally being arrested and deported. The corporations are NOT advocating open borders, only ideologues like Ramo are. The corps want the situation regularized, instead of the unholy mess we have now. Part of that regularization will almost certainly involve concessions to CURRENT illegals that go farther than one would like in an ideal world (but then in an ideal world El Salvador would be as rich as Japan and this would all be academic) but are necessary to reduce the costs of the transition. And yeah, we need immigrants of some kind, not cause we need mexican restaurants, but cause they help with the demographic balance on Social Security. (And yeah, even if the illegals themselves dont pay much in, their kids will)

[Dulaak]

They are NOT open. Open borders would mean anyone could walk through at the proper crossings. Not pay a coyote, or risk dying of thirst in desert. Not to mention occasionally being arrested and deported. The corporations are NOT advocating open borders, only ideologues like Ramo are. The corps want the situation regularized, instead of the unholy mess we have now. Part of that regularization will almost certainly involve concessions to CURRENT illegals that go farther than one would like in an ideal world (but then in an ideal world El Salvador would be as rich as Japan and this would all be academic) but are necessary to reduce the costs of the transition. And yeah, we need immigrants of some kind, not cause we need mexican restaurants, but cause they help with the demographic balance on Social Security. (And yeah, even if the illegals themselves dont pay much in, their kids will)

If you can walk across without being caught, it's an open border. A closed border would see a 10 foot concrete wall spanning the border with guards at intervals. It's kind of hard to argue the border isn't open when there are so many illegals here don't you think?

Corporations have enormous political clout. The majority of America wants the border problem fixed, so it would therefore be in the best interest of politicians to do so lest they lose their political base. The only thing that could change that is if something more powerful than voters were to step in. I'm not anti-corporations, but it's sa bit naive to say that corporations aren't playing a role in keeping the borders open.

During WW2 we rounded up all the japanese and put them in concentration camps. I fail to see how it would be impossible to round up illegal immigrants and deport them back to their countries.

If we need illegal immigrants to keep SS solvent, then there is an obvious problem. The government is naive to think that young people like myself are going to pay extravagant amounts to fund an illegal socialist program. One way or another, SS is going to end. Allowing people in illegally to keep it afloat is a terrible reason and just underscores other problems.

[Ramo]

Newt has been saying some rather unorthodox things recently. After throwing his support to Thompson, it freed him up to take some non-party line positions (i.e. about the war).

And look at the GOP '08 field right now. With a few exceptions, there are a bunch of shameless flip-floppers on immigration (among other issues). I mean, Giuliani sued the Feds to get one of those "sanctuary cities" that he's now critical of. If I really did have a Tancredist position, I'd be mightily skeptical about these guys...

Thats threadjack worthy.

I think if we treated illegal entry as lightly as jaywalking (which is NOT the status quo, of course) wed soon have a society that immigrants wouldnt be all that interested in coming to. Not only would wages be depressed to equilibrating levels, but I dont think the political culture that creates the stability and economic growth that makes entry desirable would survive. I suppose you could call that the Kantian arguement against open borders.

Meh. I'm skeptical about these sorts of zero-sum doomsday predictions. There was a recent Times article about two studies of the current illegal immigration effect on American wages. They noted that the only segment of the population that was hurt were high school dropouts, and that effect was quite negligible (one study said negligibly negative, the other negilibly positive). Whatever effect there would be on wages would be dwarfed by other common non-market mechanisms to raise this segment of the population's wages. As we discussed in the last immigration argument (about Mickey Kaus IIRC), the arguments here are pretty identical to the arguments over free trade. Maybe you ease in the transition to open borders over a fairly long time, maybe you need something equivalent to the trade readjustment programs, but I don't really see how a huge disaster necessarily follows.

Note of course theres a HUGE range of positions between open borders and "toss the bastards back and then lock the door and throwaway the key."

Yeah, but I'm not in it.

[Chemical Ollie]

The American problem is not the number of parties, it's the voting system that creates a situation where only two parties are worth casting a vote on.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dulaak
If you can walk across without being caught, it's an open border. A closed border would see a 10 foot concrete wall spanning the border with guards at intervals. It's kind of hard to argue the border isn't open when there are so many illegals here don't you think?

I think this is somewhat what LOTM was talking about when he was discussing rhetorical tricks.

An Open Border policy is allowing anyone to come through. Making it illegal to come through, but not having the manpower to enforce it fully is NOT an Open Border policy.

[Dulaak]

We have the manpower, we're just not using it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
An Open Border policy is allowing anyone to come through. Making it illegal to come through, but not having the manpower to enforce it fully is NOT an Open Border policy.

What's it called when you just don't want to enforce it as seemed to be the case since Reagan?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dulaak
We have the manpower, we're just not using it.

What are they doing? Sitting around?

Are they not arresting some illegals and sending them back? Do they not have to cross over deserts because we won't let them in the main gates?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

Newt has been saying some rather unorthodox things recently. After throwing his support to Thompson, it freed him up to take some non-party line positions (i.e. about the war).

And look at the GOP '08 field right now. With a few exceptions, there are a bunch of shameless flip-floppers on immigration (among other issues). I mean, Giuliani sued the Feds to get one of those "sanctuary cities" that he's now critical of. If I really did have a Tancredist position, I'd be mightily skeptical about these guys...

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.

. I'm skeptical about these sorts of zero-sum doomsday predictions. There was a recent Times article about two studies of the current illegal immigration effect on American wages. They noted that the only segment of the population that was hurt were high school dropouts, and that effect was quite negligible (one study said negligibly negative, the other negilibly positive). Whatever effect there would be on wages would be dwarfed by other common non-market mechanisms to raise this segment of the population's wages. As we discussed in the last immigration argument (about Mickey Kaus IIRC), the arguments here are pretty identical to the arguments over free trade. Maybe you ease in the transition to open borders over a fairly long time, maybe you need something equivalent to the trade readjustment programs, but I don't really see how a huge disaster necessarily follows.

Note the NYT looked at the impact of the current level of immigration, which, I presume you would agree, is NOT open borders, by a long shot.

As for free trade, it similar, at most in its impact on wages. And the impact of free trade on wages is by its nature slow, since you cant build a new factory in El Salvador overnight, and if you do, you need infrastructure, etc to support it. The very things that are placing limits on growth in China and India.

And you will not well I didnt only mention the impact on wages, but the impact on the political culture of the USA. Which trade does not impact. You have the presence of millions of voting citizens (assuming you give them all citizenship) who dont share your basic political notions, and who are prevented by language from even entering the common dialogue. My own grandparents and their opposite numbers among other euro immigrant groups presented the same dilemma, supporting political machines (and thus empowering corrupt corporations, Im sure youd love that) except for the minority who became political radicals. BOTH were profoundly threatening to the native majority. And that was despite a large number of immigrants being from Ireland, where they had at least absorbed the structure of the system, if not the desired "values". Oh, and my ancestors couldnt go back "home" for a quick vacation, to reinforce their alien culture. Today, with open borders and current transportation, we'd have much larger numbers, much larger percentages, and much less assimilation.

I suppose you could NOT allow them to become citizens. Have a majority of residents who arent allowed to vote. I dont think THAT would be good for the polity either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's it called when you just don't want to enforce it as seemed to be the case since Reagan?

Let's put it this way. Is marijuana decriminalized even though it seems most of times we really don't want to enforce it?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What's it called when you just don't want to enforce it as seemed to be the case since Reagan?

a leaky border?


Last time I drove the interstate, lots of folks got away with doing 85 mph plus. Would you suggest that means we have no speed limits?

I dont know of many people getting arrested for marijuana possesion. Would you say that mean marijuana is legal? Would you care to, you know, go to court to enforce a contract for the sale of marijuana?

You get across the border. You pay a few hundred to a coyote for the privilege. Maybe you pay it twice, cause you get caught the first time. You are lucky and dont die on the way. Then you arrive, and you can only work as a day laborer, cause any decent job requires papers. You cant drive a car. You keep your head down, the way no legal immigrant has to. Maybe you manage to buy some forged papers, but you want to avoid overusing them, just in case.

Compare that to what I think Ramo wants. You take the greyhound bus across the border. Lower costs, lower lost time, zero risk. You arrive, you get papers, you work in anything you can qualify for, youre legal.

you think that wouldnt effect the number of immigrants? I do.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Civil disobedience usually involves breaking a law in public, and then accepting the punishment, in order to publicize an injustice. You know, like sitting down at a lunch counter and waiting to be arrested. Or chaining yourself to the Soviet embassy as some folks I know did.


I doubt very much that the furtive folks who come and go from the house across the street from my home, are interested in publicity, or making a point about injustice.

We dont mind the spanish music that occasionally drifts over though.

I'm not equating the two, I'm just trying to show an example of something being illegal but not necessarily wrong.

Originally posted by Duulak
Are you attempting to start a debate on elementary ethics? Not going to happen. It's pretty much impossible to make the argument that illegal immigration is good, and it's even more difficult to simplify it and say that it is as benign as jay-walking.

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dulaak


The fact that you equate illegal immigration to jay-walking really says more than I ever could.

The two are equally moral/immoral.

[Ramo]

Note the NYT looked at the impact of the current level of immigration, which, I presume you would agree, is NOT open borders, by a long shot.

As for free trade, it similar, at most in its impact on wages. And the impact of free trade on wages is by its nature slow, since you cant build a new factory in El Salvador overnight, and if you do, you need infrastructure, etc to support it. The very things that are placing limits on growth in China and India.

As I was saying, I think there could be a lengthy transition period to open borders and extensive trade readjustment programs. And even IF it reduces some peoples' standard of living somewhat, I don't see how it's not a benefit to many more.

And you will not well I didnt only mention the impact on wages, but the impact on the political culture of the USA. Which trade does not impact. You have the presence of millions of voting citizens (assuming you give them all citizenship) who dont share your basic political notions, and who are prevented by language from even entering the common dialogue.

I don't have any real objection to the standard procedures for residents to become citizens, etc. Possibly even a more extensive one.

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

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ramo

NYC, Chicago, etc. did have some rough spots, but turned out pretty well...

Southside of Chicago
Is the baddest part of town
So if ya go down there,
Ya better just beward
Of a man named Leroy Brown.