Immigration

[Buckeyes85]

I suspect this topic will devolve rapidly, but would like to at least make a go of it.

I believe both sides of my family immigrated to the US about 140 years ago, a mixture of Irish, German and a little Alsace Loraine mixed in when I don't know who controlled that region. At the time, if you weren't carrying any diseases, you were accepted into our country. And it seems the trait almost all immigrants had at the time was the willingness to work; to be industrious. To contribute. And most all did, if for no other reason because they had to in order to survive.

Today, immigration to the US is much more strict, and I don't disagree with those policies. Nor do I disagree with the wish to enforce the immigration laws we have in place and do all that we can to make sure those that come here, come here legally.

But for those who trek or caravan across the desert, at great peril to themselves and their family, and who sneak into our country illegally, are they really that different than our ancestors who we worship for their spirit and willingness to work? If so, how? Is the fact they enter illegally whereas most of our ancestors didn't make these immigrants evil, or welchers, or a drain on society or the economy? If so, I'd like to know how.

 

[Bullseye]

I suspect this topic will devolve rapidly, but would like to at least make a go of it.

I believe both sides of my family immigrated to the US about 140 years ago, a mixture of Irish, German and a little Alsace Loraine mixed in when I don't know who controlled that region. At the time, if you weren't carrying any diseases, you were accepted into our country. And it seems the trait almost all immigrants had at the time was the willingness to work; to be industrious. To contribute. And most all did, if for no other reason because they had to in order to survive.

Today, immigration to the US is much more strict, and I don't disagree with those policies. Nor do I disagree with the wish to enforce the immigration laws we have in place and do all that we can to make sure those that come here, come here legally.

But for those who trek or caravan across the desert, at great peril to themselves and their family, and who sneak into our country illegally, are they really that different than our ancestors who we worship for their spirit and willingness to work? If so, how? Is the fact they enter illegally whereas most of our ancestors didn't make these immigrants evil, or welchers, or a drain on society or the economy? If so, I'd like to know how.

Our ancestors had no choice, there as no government, no procedures, zip, zilch, nada. Today every US Embassy has an immigration office; we have procedures, laws and personnel.

 

[Ug make hammer]

When the US was importing mostly poor people, they took the jobs no-one else wanted (including criminal jobs it must be said) and by growing the economy lifted everyone who was above the basic level of manual labor.

Now however, the US imports a few of those people (legally or illegally) but also rich and skilled people. The "average" American should resent that more, but for some reason resentment focusses on the immigrants who are poor. And not so much on immigrants who are taking their small business opportunities and the jobs they went to college for.

To be considered good citizenship material, all that is required is that the person be rich. To be considered poor citizenship material, all that is required is that the person be poor. It probably applies to everyone not just immigrants. Poverty is seen as a character fault ... and that is what has changed.

 

[Individual]

Our ancestors had no choice, there as no government, no procedures, zip, zilch, nada. Today every US Embassy has an immigration office; we have procedures, laws and personnel.

Our immigration AND citizenship laws are greatly outdated and THAT, IMO, should be a major issue our Congress should give some attention to.
No politician wants to become involved in any issue that might cost them votes, especially when Federal spending can buy them votes.
Many, perhaps most, third world Countries have more stringent laws relating to immigration and/or citizenship than does the U.S.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Our immigration AND citizenship laws are greatly outdated and THAT, IMO, should be a major issue our Congress should give some attention to.
No politician wants to become involved in any issue that might cost them votes, especially when Federal spending can buy them votes.
Many, perhaps most, third world Countries have more stringent laws relating to immigration and/or citizenship than does the U.S.

They are alike though, in that immigrants with money are always welcome.

 

[Individual]

They are alike though, in that immigrants with money are always welcome.

It's a necessity to show I have adequate income coming from my home country to provide for my total support for 1 year for me to obtain a visa extension each year where I'm living, or be deported if I'm unable to provide proof. Should I need additional assistance the ONLY help government will provide me is put me in contact with my home country Embassy, who in turn will only help me contact a family member or friend in the U.S. should it be financial assistance I'm seeking.

 

[Ug make hammer]

It's a necessity to show I have adequate income coming from my home country to provide for my total support for 1 year for me to obtain a visa extension each year where I'm living, or be deported if I'm unable to provide proof. Should I need additional assistance the ONLY help government will provide me is put me in contact with my home country Embassy, who in turn will only help me contact a family member or friend in the U.S. should it be financial assistance I'm seeking.

So, basically a 1 year working visa? No path to citizenship?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

T

Our ancestors had no choice, there as no government, no procedures, zip, zilch, nada. Today every US Embassy has an immigration office; we have procedures, laws and personnel.

There's been a US government since prior to 1776, so your claim that we didn't have a government, immigration laws or procedures is bizarre and factually inaccurate.

 

[Individual]

So, basically a 1 year working visa? No path to citizenship?

No, a one year retirement visa. I might have done that 30 years ago, but at my age the visa extension is much cheaper and I'd gain nothing of value as a result.

 

[Individual]

T
There's been a US government since prior to 1776, so your claim that we didn't have a government, immigration laws or procedures is bizarre and factually inaccurate.

In the beginning the U.S. only contained 13 States created from the 13 colonies, all the others joined at later dates, Alaska and Hawaii were the most recent, well into the 20th century. There were no immigration laws at all, with the first U.S. immigration laws being created in the late 19th century. Until territories became States they little, limited, or no government, and no immigration laws.

 

[NatMorton]

I suspect this topic will devolve rapidly, but would like to at least make a go of it.

I believe both sides of my family immigrated to the US about 140 years ago, a mixture of Irish, German and a little Alsace Loraine mixed in when I don't know who controlled that region. At the time, if you weren't carrying any diseases, you were accepted into our country. And it seems the trait almost all immigrants had at the time was the willingness to work; to be industrious. To contribute. And most all did, if for no other reason because they had to in order to survive.

Today, immigration to the US is much more strict, and I don't disagree with those policies. Nor do I disagree with the wish to enforce the immigration laws we have in place and do all that we can to make sure those that come here, come here legally.

But for those who trek or caravan across the desert, at great peril to themselves and their family, and who sneak into our country illegally, are they really that different than our ancestors who we worship for their spirit and willingness to work? If so, how? Is the fact they enter illegally whereas most of our ancestors didn't make these immigrants evil, or welchers, or a drain on society or the economy? If so, I'd like to know how.

They're not very different at all with regard to who they are why they're coming. I think one can make a credible argument that today immigrants can be a greater drain on public financing simply because we spend far more on social services now than we did 140 years ago. I'm not saying that spending is per se a bad thing, but it does have consequences, and one of those consequences is that immigration draws a bigger hit on the public treasury now than it did then. This is a good reason to have and enforce limits.

One thing that we are doing to today's immigrants that we didn't do then is leaving the back door to the basement open and creating an illegal immigrant underclass that largely did not exist before. Because of their illegal status, these families do not get the same opportunities to advance that legal immigrants do. This is, IMO, a direct result of the country not enforcing its immigration laws and, in some areas, officials actively working to see that they are circumvented (think "Sanctuary city.") We should either adopt an open border policy or enforce the laws we have. Turning a blind eye to immigration law violation is the proverbial squirrel standing in the middle of the road. Pick a side because either side creates less of a problem than where you are.

 

[aociswundumho]

They're not very different at all with regard to who they are why they're coming. I think one can make a credible argument that today immigrants can be a greater drain on public financing simply because we spend far more on social services now than we did 140 years ago. I'm not saying that spending is per se a bad thing, but it does have consequences, and one of those consequences is that immigration draws a bigger hit on the public treasury now than it did then. This is a good reason to have and enforce limits.

Yes, but only for poor, unskilled, and uneducated immigrants.

What is the good reason for limiting highly skilled and highly educated immigrants?

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, but only for poor, unskilled, and uneducated immigrants.

Which describes every Morton ancestor who stepped off the boat.

I agree with your larger point. There should be different caps (or maybe no cap at all) on highly skilled immigration.

 

[Jay59]

I suspect this topic will devolve rapidly, but would like to at least make a go of it. I believe both sides of my family immigrated to the US about 140 years ago, a mixture of Irish, German and a little Alsace Loraine mixed in when I don't know who controlled that region. At the time, if you weren't carrying any diseases, you were accepted into our country. And it seems the trait almost all immigrants had at the time was the willingness to work; to be industrious. To contribute. And most all did, if for no other reason because they had to in order to survive. Today, immigration to the US is much more strict, and I don't disagree with those policies. Nor do I disagree with the wish to enforce the immigration laws we have in place and do all that we can to make sure those that come here, come here legally.

But for those who trek or caravan across the desert, at great peril to themselves and their family, and who sneak into our country illegally, are they really that different than our ancestors who we worship for their spirit and willingness to work? If so, how? Is the fact they enter illegally whereas most of our ancestors didn't make these immigrants evil, or welchers, or a drain on society or the economy? If so, I'd like to know how.

Yes, and you said it yourself--illegally. That is a distinction that should never be overlooked or trivialized.

In fact, this entire conversation is improperly titled because there is almost no disagreement on immigration. It's the disregard for the rule of law that is the core of the problem.

 

[NatMorton]

It's the disregard for the rule of law that is the core of the problem.

Bingo.

 

[bluesmoke]

In the beginning the U.S. only contained 13 States created from the 13 colonies, all the others joined at later dates, Alaska and Hawaii were the most recent, well into the 20th century. There were no immigration laws at all, with the first U.S. immigration laws being created in the late 19th century. Until territories became States they little, limited, or no government, and no immigration laws.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed citizenry of immigrants after 2 yrs of residency. The law allowed immigration as set by the policy, however "open", of the US and the states.

US fertility rates cannot sustain pop growth necessary for the labor to support economic expansion without immigration. Immigration is why we have had the labor, regardless of the categories of skill, education and experience, to become the world's greatest economic and military power.

 

[j brown's body]

I suspect this topic will devolve rapidly, but would like to at least make a go of it.

I believe both sides of my family immigrated to the US about 140 years ago, a mixture of Irish, German and a little Alsace Loraine mixed in when I don't know who controlled that region. At the time, if you weren't carrying any diseases, you were accepted into our country. And it seems the trait almost all immigrants had at the time was the willingness to work; to be industrious. To contribute. And most all did, if for no other reason because they had to in order to survive.

Today, immigration to the US is much more strict, and I don't disagree with those policies. Nor do I disagree with the wish to enforce the immigration laws we have in place and do all that we can to make sure those that come here, come here legally.

But for those who trek or caravan across the desert, at great peril to themselves and their family, and who sneak into our country illegally, are they really that different than our ancestors who we worship for their spirit and willingness to work? If so, how? Is the fact they enter illegally whereas most of our ancestors didn't make these immigrants evil, or welchers, or a drain on society or the economy? If so, I'd like to know how.

I marvel at the arrogance of people who disparage these folks who go to so much trouble to be here when all they did was get born here.

I like Eric Hoffer's point of view: "It almost seems that nobody can hate America as much as native Americans. America needs new immigrants to love and cherish it."

Eric Hoffer

 

[j brown's body]

Bingo.

Threads like this give us an opportunity to see who would have been supportive of the Fugitive Slave Act.

 

[NatMorton]

Threads like this give us an opportunity to see who would have been supportive of the Fugitive Slave Act.

And for others to make remarkably stupid accusations.

 

[Individual]

The Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed citizenry of immigrants after 2 yrs of residency. The law allowed immigration as set by the policy, however "open", of the US and the states.

US fertility rates cannot sustain pop growth necessary for the labor to support economic expansion without immigration. Immigration is why we have had the labor, regardless of the categories of skill, education and experience, to become the world's greatest economic and military power.

I can't say I've found that proven true, unless you're speaking about low paying jobs Americans don't want to do.
Middle class, higher paying, labor is easy to relocate abroad where it can be done at a much lower cost, while top and bottom paying jobs usually remain in the U.S. while the lower paying jobs are the most abundant and probably fasting growing. Living in Asia, I've noticed a lot of products labeled "Designed in the U.S. - Manufactured in China." I can't think of anything I've bought in the last 30 years that was actually manufactured in the U.S. though I have many U.S. brand products.
As I see it, the middle class in the U.S. is shrinking, and with constant inflation, the cost of living is growing beyond the point where a living income can be produced by even 2 adults working full time jobs.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Yes, and you said it yourself--illegally. That is a distinction that should never be overlooked or trivialized.

In fact, this entire conversation is improperly titled because there is almost no disagreement on immigration. It's the disregard for the rule of law that is the core of the problem.

That frankly is the simplistic mentality that I was trying to address. And a simplistic mentality that many on the right seem to employ when it suits their political agenda.

Is the 80-year-old women pulled over for going 66 mph in a 65 zone to be vilified because she broke the rule of law? Is she evil due to her disregard for the rule of law?

Or, perhaps we look at who that person is, what law they broke, what harm they caused and we don't presume they are evil simply based upon the fact that they admittedly did not follow the law. Is that so hard for folks like you to comprehend?

 

[Jay59]

That frankly is the simplistic mentality that I was trying to address. And a simplistic mentality that many on the right seem to employ when it suits their political agenda.

Is the 80-year-old women pulled over for going 66 mph in a 65 zone to be vilified because she broke the rule of law? Is she evil due to her disregard for the rule of law?

Or, perhaps we look at who that person is, what law they broke, what harm they caused and we don't presume they are evil simply based upon the fact that they admittedly did not follow the law. Is that so hard for folks like you to comprehend?

Overly simplistic is a lawyerly way of saying that the law does not apply.

However, it's good that we are clear that the subject is the rule of law and not immigration as such.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Overly simplistic is a lawyerly way of saying that the law does not really apply.

However, it's good that we are clear that the subject is the rule of law and not immigration as such.

Yea, not so much.

Maybe you didn't actually read my original post?
That said, I probably should have titled the thread "illegal immigration" because I am not attempting to argue that we should not have immigration laws, nor argue that they should not be enforced.
The question was how people view those who come here illegally- and why.

Assume my great great grandfather came here legally when there essentially were no immigration laws. He worked his ass off in construction to support his family.
(All great assumptions because for all I know, my great great grandfather was an Irish drunk and never worked a day in his life).

Now picture the guy from central America who risks his life and all the money he has in the world to get to the US border, he enters illegally in order to work his ass off hanging drywall or doing shingles in order to support his family. Is he automatically a "bad" person having entered our country illegally but my drunk forbearer is OK? That seems to be the position of the right, and a rallying point on the topic of illegal immigration.

 

[Bullseye]

T
There's been a US government since prior to 1776, so your claim that we didn't have a government, immigration laws or procedures is bizarre and factually inaccurate.

So you think THE COLONIES had an immigration system prior to 1776? They were colonies of England. Study up on your history.

 

[Bullseye]

Our immigration AND citizenship laws are greatly outdated and THAT, IMO, should be a major issue our Congress should give some attention to.
No politician wants to become involved in any issue that might cost them votes, especially when Federal spending can buy them votes.
Many, perhaps most, third world Countries have more stringent laws relating to immigration and/or citizenship than does the U.S.

That wasn't the point I was making, but I agree we need to modernize immigration system - first step being strong border security.