Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by CedarParkFan, Feb 23, 2013.
I will write more tonight provided I have time.
I think the "illegal" part is and has been nonsense. Our border laws are a joke. The quotas for people from Mexico are ridiculously low and make it virtually impossible for people to legally immigrate. The job demand was here for decades (it has significantly lessened). As a result, we just winked at the laws. These laws also are a relatively recent imposition in the US and the Southwest. For the better part of a century, people freely migrated between the US and Mexico. I know plenty of people with family on both sides of the artificial line. We used to be a part of Mexico.
Almost every good "American" came here when all you had to do was show up without TB. My family came here when all you had to do was show up and not let the natives kill you. They all came here looking for a new and better life for their family exactly like the vast majority of illegal aliens. I find it hypocritical for anyone who came to this country without a quota or restriction to criticize those who do. If your option is starve to death or "illegally" immigrate, I know what most of us would choose.
So I do not view these people as immoral for ignoring a law which makes no sense and which has been broken by employers for decades. The main impact of the immigration law has been to lower labor costs. I view this primary function as far more immoral than someone wanting a menial job.
So I think setting up some form of a pathway to citizenship and realistically and fairly treating guest workers is the moral response to this situation that has been created by both parties and their supporters particularly Republican business interests. I also find it abhorrent that parents with kids who are US citizens would be deported. This is morally indefensible.
As far as morals and politics, I find most political decisions are devoid of morals or at least are in a grey area.
Rule of law is rule of law. If it doesn't make sense then change the law, but that doesn't give people license to ignore what is on the books. Lawbreaking is immoral too. Just like manipulating people and labor wages.
Starving to death or letting your kids starve to death is much worse than breaking a law that everyone ignores when it is convenient. I do not find the immigration laws moral, sane or just. You could make a very convincing argument that they exist to dampen wages rather than regulate immigration.
Did we really get 11 million (I have no idea whether this is the real number) illegals here in a vacuum?
With the way our great society is going, I don't think we will have a shortage of an unskilled workforce in the foreseeable future. Unemployment is hovering around 8% with an additional 6% who have stopped looking for work. Add in a percentage of the 11.5 million illegal immigrants and the growing number of part-time workers businesses have shifted due to new government healthcare regulations, and the number of unemployed or underemployed reaches about 20%.
Just as a point of interest and as a learning experience for some: After Kristallnacht in November 1938, many Jews within Germany decided that it was time to leave. Though many German Jews had emigrated in the preceding years, the Jews who remained had a more difficult time leaving the country because emigration policies had been toughened. By 1939, not only were visas needed to be able to enter another country but money was also needed to leave Germany. Since many countries, especially the United States, had immigration quotas, visas were near impossible to acquire within the short time spans in which they were needed. For many, the visas were acquired after it was too late.
The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 937 German Jewish refugees after they were denied entry to Cuba, the United States and Canada, until finally accepted to various countries of Europe. Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in concentration camps.
Although thousands of Jews had been admitted into the United States under the combined German-Austrian quota from 1938–1941, the US did not pursue an organized and specific rescue policy for Jewish victims of Nazi Germany until early 1944.
While some American activists sincerely intended to assist refugees, serious obstacles to any relaxation of US immigration quotas included public opposition to immigration during a time of economic depression, xenophobia, and antisemitic feelings in both the general public and among some key government officials. Once the United States entered World War II, the State Department practiced stricter immigration policies out of fear that refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany.
It was not until January 1944 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt, under pressure from officials in his own government and an American Jewish community then fully aware of the extent of mass murder, took action to rescue European Jews. Following discussions with Treasury Department officials, he established the War Refugee Board (WRB) to facilitate the rescue of imperiled refugees. With the assistance of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and the World Jewish Congress, as well as resistance organizations in German-occupied Europe, the WRB helped to rescue many thousands of Jews in Hungary, Romania, and elsewhere in Europe.
In April 1944, Roosevelt also directed that Fort Ontario, New York, become a free port for refugees. However, only a few thousand refugees were allowed there and they were from liberated areas, not from Nazi-occupied areas. They were in no imminent danger of deportation to killing centers in German-occupied Poland.
President Harry S. Truman favored a liberal immigration policy toward DPs. Faced with congressional inaction, he issued an executive order, the "Truman Directive," on December 22, 1945. The directive required that existing immigration quotas be designated for displaced persons. While overall immigration into the United States did not increase, more DPs were admitted than before. About 22,950 DPs, of whom two-thirds were Jewish, entered the United States between December 22, 1945, and 1947 under provisions of the Truman Directive.
Congressional action was needed before existing immigration quotas could be increased. In 1948, following intense lobbying by the American Jewish community, Congress passed legislation to admit 400,000 DPs to the United States. Nearly 80,000 of these, or about 20 percent, were Jewish DPs. The rest were Christians from Eastern Europe and the Baltics, many of whom had been forced laborers in Germany. The entry requirements favored agricultural laborers to such an extent, however, that President Truman called the law "flagrantly discriminatory against Jews." Congress amended the law in 1950, but by that time most of the Jewish DPs in Europe had gone to the newly established state of Israel (founded on May 14, 1948).
Nice post Uninformed. I was generally familiar with what occurred, but did not fully understand it.
As for whether the rule of law or a law in and of itself creates "morals", I would submit the Nuremberg laws. Were they moral or just?
In reply to:
I do not have the background in philosophy to properly or adequately address the concept of moral law. I do think certain laws are moral (mostly the criminal ones for the crimes we all agree upon - murder, robbery, rape etc.). There are plenty of laws that are morally ambiguous and some are even morally wrong. I do not think law is a substitute for critically thinking about the morals of particular situations from the perspective of all involved.
paso, If a law is truly immoral, then it needs to be opposed and changed. I don't see how immigration law is immoral though. It may be inefficient. It may be artificially restricted. And we all agree it hasn't been made for the interests of the immigrant. That doesn't make it immoral. People have used the immigration circumstances to do immoral things like the example Deez gives of the construction companies. But that doesn't mean the law is immoral. It means people have found ways of using the legal environment to do immoral things in order to gain competitive advantage.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with your statement about a father making the decision between starving and breaking a law. If I was that father I would break the law too. That doesn't mean I would expect the authorities to allow me to remain somewhere illegally. And it damn sure doesn't give me the right to demand things of a government/society of which I am breaking its laws. It also doesn't mean the law is wrong. We will never be able to solve all the problems of the world through making laws. And no system of laws will be able to enact the protections that are needed and at the same time avoid inconveniencing people. So even if there is a reform that we can all agree on, there will always be victims of people who use the law or the environment the law creates to do immoral things. Plus, US law is and should be made for the benefit of the US and its citizens, not non-citizens. That is at least part of your argument. that US law should be convenient for and a benefit to non-US citizens. I don't agree.
Deez sums up my feelings pretty well on this issue. Neither side has any "moral" ground to stand on. Immigrattion has become, like so many of our societal issues, a political juggernaut and, as a result, no one really wants to do anything about it.
I have looked over rubio's plan and it is very much in line with my own feelings on the issue. And it really isnt that different from BO's plan (I must use that term loosely as BO is all talk and no action on this issue as he is with most issues). I favor the following:
1) Force all current illegal residents to come forward
2) Law abiding, working aliens should be put on a path to citizenship
3) Unlawful aliens or ones with no means of support should be deported to Mexico. Why we currently incarcerate even one single illegal is baffling to me. Our prisons are over crowded and costly.
4) Put real emphasis on border security to stem the current flow
5) Greatly increase visas for skilled immigrants
6) Increase temporary work visas for unskilled immigrants
As to the OP, I suppose I can not fault illegals from making demands. This is a free country. Conversely, I would also not then be critical of a govt that deports the same people if they are here illegally.
As to many of the other types of claims being made regarding America's behavior in the past towards indians or other immigrants, I find them all completely disingenuous. People like to look at history only when it suits their positions and they like to disregard history that doesnt fit their positions. All we can do is deal with a difficult situation of immigration and illegals that exists today and try to find a way to address the issue.
But lets all remember one thing. each of us that is born an american is fortunate but life isnt fair and neither is America. It wasnt founded on fairness. it is founded on opportunity and, hopefully, a lack of discrimination based on gender, race, religion etc. Everything else you want from America you have to earn it. And if Joe has more than you because he was luckier or smarter or born into a better environment then so be it, but Joe doesnt owe you a single thing and your disdain for Joe only serves to help Joe and hurt you.
Changing demographics..............more takers and less contributors. See how long that lasts.
Why not annex Mexico? Make all people who want to be citizens, citizens. Hire a bunch of IRS agents and start collecting taxes. Next, we can go on recruiting trips for all the people who want to live here from Europe, Asia, and Africa. Free healthcare, foodstamps, education, Section 8 housing provided for all!*
*Move them all to Blue States.
that is crazy talk
You act like BO can't just print money to give away.
Of the illegals/undocumented/whatevers that I know, which is a lot, most are great hardworking people that raise their kids the same way. They are proud of their Mexican/Guatemalan/Whatever culture and customs and proud of their kids growing up in America, learning English, getting an education, etc. It is very refreshing to spend time with people that have much less of a sense of entitlement than the average American, raise thier children, have a strong family unit, etc. I have no answers in this debate, but I hope that these people are treated faily. My biggest fear is that they get citizenship and immediately become like the american non-working poor.