We Are Not a Nation of Immigrants

[Kal'Stang]

Fair point, we're ALL immigrants in some sense. So really, you undermine the OP's argument as well.

Of course I'm not for unfettered immigration. But I think we have to approach the topic ethically. Do we turn those in need away without allowing them to plead their case?

There are what...6-7 billion people on this planet? Most of whom are "needy". Do you really think that the US can/should consider each and every single one of them if they come knocking on our door? Africa alone has over 1 billion people living on it and the vast majority of them are living in worse conditions than you will find in Honduras. China also has over 1 billion people living in it, most of whom are subject to child labor and a rather despotic government.

Ethics are great and should be used....to a degree. But logic and reason should always be the top priority. Some times hard choices have to be made. And hard choices by necessity means that immediate ethics takes a back seat to long term ethics.

 

[jnug]

If a people simply followed their game (food source) along their migratory paths, that is sort of hard to call Immigration. So you can think for yourselves, how many people or peoples that lets out the "Immigrant" gate and into the "native to the country" gate. Native American Indians where here before it was a country, before it was a colony for that matter.

Migration and Immigration are not the same things.

In fact now that I think about it, MSM media calling the caravan a "Migrant Caravan" is another case of sloppy use of language.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

There are what...6-7 billion people on this planet? Most of whom are "needy". Do you really think that the US can/should consider each and every single one of them if they come knocking on our door? Africa alone has over 1 billion people living on it and the vast majority of them are living in worse conditions than you will find in Honduras. China also has over 1 billion people living in it, most of whom are subject to child labor and a rather despotic government.

Ethics are great and should be used....to a degree. But logic and reason should always be the top priority. Some times hard choices have to be made. And hard choices by necessity means that immediate ethics takes a back seat to long term ethics.

Well you kinda made a straw man out of that. I think we're ethically obligated to help them as best we can. And I don't think we need to turn ethics vs reason into a false dichotomy. Rather we use reason to decide what is ethical and what is not.

In this specific instance, we're the richest, most powerful nation on earth. We have over 300 million people.We easily have the resources to process the asylum claims of a few thousand central American refugees.

 

[GerryUK]

As someone who has immigrated to this great country can I state the obvious and ask a simple question.

This nation was built by immigrants obviously but I would suggest there is one glaring difference between those people and the current trend. The original immigrants had made a conscious decision to leave their past behind and embrace a new way of life. Surely the fact that it only took a couple of hundred years to transform a few disparate colonies into a great superpower is testament to their success. Todays mass migrations are, in my humble opinion, a totally different phenomenon... these are largely poor people seeking a better life for them and their families, looking to share in the benefits the USA has to offer (and who can blame them) but with no real wish to become 'Americans' or 'Europeans'. A generalization I know but a reasonable one I think.

My question. Why is it that I am assumed to be a racist simply because I have recognized the effect of uncontrolled mass immigration by people who don't want to integrate into the host society.

 

[jnug]

As someone who has immigrated to this great country can I state the obvious and ask a simple question.

This nation was built by immigrants obviously but I would suggest there is one glaring difference between those people and the current trend. The original immigrants had made a conscious decision to leave their past behind and embrace a new way of life. Surely the fact that it only took a couple of hundred years to transform a few disparate colonies into a great superpower is testament to their success. Todays mass migrations are, in my humble opinion, a totally different phenomenon... these are largely poor people seeking a better life for them and their families, looking to share in the benefits the USA has to offer (and who can blame them) but with no real wish to become 'Americans' or 'Europeans'. A generalization I know but a reasonable one I think.

My question. Why is it that I am assumed to be a racist simply because I have recognized the effect of uncontrolled mass immigration by people who don't want to integrate into the host society.

For the most part they were "leaving behind" lives of religious or other forms of oppression, imprisonment, famine, sickness and social disenfranchisement which often led to just plain early death. Glorifying the motives of the so-called original immigrants won't get you very far. That simplistic and wholly inaccurate glorification mishmash is what you read in grammar school history books. Some of our early colonies were about one grade above prison colonies. Does it not occur to anybody how easily we fell into the adoption of slavery?

Heck our entire set or originating documents were aspirational documents. In other words, "We are not that great nor even good right now. But by God we have had it with this Imperial and Imperious King and we are going to try to be better".

 

[GerryUK]

Trust me Jedi... you have the resources to process a few thousand claims. But... it's all about perception. Europe invited a few thousand and was flooded and millions are still trying. Completely overwhelming the available resources. Australia found a way to process the claims without allowing anyone into the country first and the flood turned into a trickle (perhaps the genuine few in real need?). The USA is one of the most generous nations on earth and does help untold millions in situ. There is a point at which 'ethically' you have to consider your own first or everyone suffers

 

[Lovebug]

Um, Native Americans have lived on this continent for the past 11,000+ years

Americans of European and African descent have lived here for only about the past 400.

Were they a U.S. of A?

 

[GerryUK]

Fortunately the people of the time largely evolved to live up to those aspirational documents. You illustrate my point by suggesting they 'fell into the adoption of slavery'... slavery was a worldwide, historically entrenched system that civilized people outgrew over time. Personally I prefer to accept the fact that different times were 'different' and celebrate the great and continuing efforts to grow.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Were they a U.S. of A?

No,but neither were the European and African immigrants prior to 1776

 

[noonereal]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our posterity sure sounds very different than the rootless people that our elite want us to think Americans are.

No, we are certainly not a nation of immigrants. We were never set up as such a thing. Anyone espousing this platitude is either misinformed or a liar.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

another rewrite of history... yawn

 

[Lovebug]

No,but neither were the European and African immigrants prior to 1776

Indeed, and then came 1776. Right? Lets get on the same page, unless we want to compare other countries during the last 11,000 years with what it is now as well.

 

[NotreDame]

We are a nation of immigrants, its what makes us strong. First, it was the Spanish, who wiped out the native empires in FL, CA, Mexico, and South America. Then it was Columbus, who wiped out the natives of the islands around FL. Then it was puritan seeking religious asylum, who wiped out the natives in SC, VA, and NY.

Desiring not to be pedantic, but a reasonable argument can be made the groups of people you reference were not immigrants. Rather, they emigrated from their country to the North American continent. It is perhaps misplaced to refer to those groups of people as immigrants.

Regardless, your broader point is what eventually came to be known as the United States was first settled by thousands of people leaving the European continent.

 

[NotreDame]

My understanding of the "caravan"is that they are largely fleeing rampant crime, violence,corruption and persecution. The reason they're in a "caravan" at all is because it lessens their chances of being mugged, robbed or worse. Ethically, I can't defend not letting them have their chance at claiming asylum and undergoing due process to become permanent residents,and eventually citizens.

Ethically? And what ethical precept are you invoking? What is the source of the ethical precept?

 

[jnug]

Fortunately the people of the time largely evolved to live up to those aspirational documents. You illustrate my point by suggesting they 'fell into the adoption of slavery'... slavery was a worldwide, historically entrenched system that civilized people outgrew over time. Personally I prefer to accept the fact that different times were 'different' and celebrate the great and continuing efforts to grow.

We have a long way to go to live up to those aspirations even today. We arc toward justice in this country, slowly painfully arc toward justice with fits and starts. But at least we have the aspiration. The "slavery" you speak of as an entrenched system is called "Royalty". Aspiration does not exist where Royalty rules and that is what Europe had. That is what Asia had. To an extent that is what Africa had. It only took us here about 250 years to throw off the shackles of Royalty and throw it right back in Europe's faces, mainly because this continent had a wealth of natural resources while being far enough away from the constantly waring idiotic Royal families of Europe to keep them at bay. In fact, we were able to build out the country on the cheap because Europe was constantly broke fighting endless wars with each other and would do just about anything for a little cash.

How did we become so dominant so quickly? See power abhors a vacuum, endless wars in Europe ultimately reducing that continent to rubble, a wealth of natural resources on this continent, the natural barrier represented by two oceans for all but the 21st century coupled with a lack of multiple land borders with adversarial nations which just about dooms Europe with or without Royalty. Lets not forget that WW1 was the last great European Royal War of lunacy and that WW1 led directly to WW2. Europe does not have more than 75 years of bleeding through its Royal arseholes under its belt.

That does not forgive us here for committing genocide on Native Americans in a bold faced effort to wipe them out so we could ignore their very real and righteous claims to the land we wanted to pilfer and grow out into. We simply did not consider them either worthy of life or worthy of honest treaty. "Oh the Europeans, they are at least real people. We can cut a deal with them and honor it."

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Ethically? And what ethical precept are you invoking? What is the source of the ethical precept?

Personally, in terms of normative ethics, I'm a two-level consequentialist/Utilitarian, but I don't see how one could make much of an argument here using purely deontological or virtue ethics arguments.

What's your view?

 

[Hari Seldon]

The migration of DNA on its own does not make an immigrant....so no.

Immigrants are beings, if the being did not migrate then they are no immigrant and cant be fairly counted as such.

Like slaves?

 

[OlNate]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our posterity sure sounds very different than the rootless people that our elite want us to think Americans are.

No, we are certainly not a nation of immigrants. We were never set up as such a thing. Anyone espousing this platitude is either misinformed or a liar.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Tsk...Phat... Of course you are. Get over it, and be nicer to immigrants...just like you.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Indeed, and then came 1776. Right? Lets get on the same page, unless we want to compare other countries during the last 11,000 years with what it is now as well.

OK,so what exactly is your argument here?

 

[marke]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our posterity sure sounds very different than the rootless people that our elite want us to think Americans are.

No, we are certainly not a nation of immigrants. We were never set up as such a thing. Anyone espousing this platitude is either misinformed or a liar.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

Americans should encourage immigration, but not foolishness. We cannot indiscriminately open the doors to our borders and to the US treasury for the purpose of bringing in all those from other nations desiring to be enriched by what they might find here. We can bankrupt our own nation trying to improve the lives of the poor of the whole world.

 

[southwest88]

Nor should we forget

Um, Native Americans have lived on this continent for the past 11,000+ years

Americans of European and African descent have lived here for only about the past 400.

Yah, that's discounting Erik the Red & so on. Granted that the Norse weren't able to establish a permanent colony in Greenland & on the North American mainland, but they were there. As for Columbus & the Spanish & Portuguese - Columbus sailed in 1492CE. By my calendar, that means that Europeans have been in the Americas on a permanent basis for 526 years. Yes, the Native Peoples had first claim, by precedent.

 

[Luckyone]

There are what...6-7 billion people on this planet? Most of whom are "needy". Do you really think that the US can/should consider each and every single one of them if they come knocking on our door? Africa alone has over 1 billion people living on it and the vast majority of them are living in worse conditions than you will find in Honduras. China also has over 1 billion people living in it, most of whom are subject to child labor and a rather despotic government.

Ethics are great and should be used....to a degree. But logic and reason should always be the top priority. Some times hard choices have to be made. And hard choices by necessity means that immediate ethics takes a back seat to long term ethics.

We have a set of guidelines for giving sanctuary from persecution to people that ask and qualify for it. It has never in the past caused us problems and there is no reason why it could cause us problems now.

Nonetheless, I do understand that opening our borders to all is not an option, especially given the population explosion being seen in the world and the amount of people that are running away from their own governments and problems that continue and will continue to expand throughout the world.

As it is, the world is facing a major world-wide catastrophe in the not too distant future because of the growth being seen and the problems that continue to emerge. As such, we do need to control immigration because if we don't, we will be swallowed up as is happening in other places.

By the same token, it is a world-wide problem that needs to be addressed not only by the United States but by all nations because it affects the human race, not just the American populace.

Closing ourselves totally will solve the problem temporarily but not for long and certainly create other problems that will need to be addressed.

I wish there was a simple solution but there isn't. This is one of those kind of problems that the world has to face and adapt to, until such a time that mother nature comes in a solves the problem, likely with a mass dying event that faces us all in the future.

 

[southwest88]

A nation requires people - otherwise, it's just space

Why should I care?

I say that a person is either an American or they are not...THAT is the difference that matters when it comes to deciding who we let over the borders.....and those who are not American only get over the border if we allow them the right paperwork...and we decide who to say yes to.

Well, into the US, certainly. The history is that what became the US was a free for all @ first, & that has had lasting effects upon the succeeding society & politics. The Native Peoples treated the beginnings of the UK mass migration to the New World as merely another polity, along with their dealings with the Spanish & the French. The Native Peoples didn't realize that the UK colonies were only the tip of the spear, & that serious efforts to establish whole communities - families, churches, schools, government - would soon follow. The UK colonists were hungry for land - & didn't treat territorial boundaries - Native Peoples' nor Canadian nor French nor Spanish - as if they were real barriers.

 

[jnug]

Re: A nation requires people - otherwise, it's just space

The thread title is sheer ignorance itself. Since we appear to have transitioned from that bit of nonsense into a discussion of South and Central Immigration if I am reading the posts with some understanding for them, we cannot solve the issue with a physical wall. A physical wall is the easiest of any aspect of border security to overcome. Do we need border security, more processing capability for asylum claims and a better more rational system than what we have? Surely. What we refuse to acknowledge and sidestep over and over again is that the incentive to leave a place is just as strong if not stronger than the incentive to go somewhere else.

Our previous efforts to keep Central Americans at home were never really more than endless efforts at regime change. "Lets overthrow their despot and install our despot and spend the money it takes to keep him in power". Yea that worked! Complete waste of money.

Why are we so anxious to employ uneducated masses of people outside of our hemisphere when there are plenty of them right in our own hemisphere who also happen to be within walking distance of our border? Could it be that we wanted them here to form a cheap albeit illegal domestic labor pool? Now we don't exactly like that idea or we don't like certain aspects of it. Well OK.....then employ them where they are.

The brainiest thing "43" ever did, maybe the only brainy thing he did was address and stop the AIDS pandemic at its source. God only knows how many more of the world's people including Americans would have died otherwise. While a virus is only one form of ailment that people might flee, the virus itself being communicable can be viewed through the lens of social ailments one might think are getting out of control within your own borders. Just because it was 43's response to a pandemic does not upend the notion that if you want people to stay at home, think they are now more of a burden though they once represented a benefit that you encouraged for your own purposes, give them a reason to stay at home. Believe it or not, for many people who only know the suffering they live with everyday, the notion that you might shoot them if they come here ain't gonna' get it done.

Disassociate aid to Central American countries from regime change and now you are talking. Until we arrive at that determination, the rest is just Right wing mudslinging and a response to Right wing mudslinging. Do we honestly care what GD government they choose or have as long as they are there and not here in numbers we find intolerable? As much as you can, address the issue at its source not right at your border.

 

[southwest88]

European history came in from the east, true enough

Desiring not to be pedantic, but a reasonable argument can be made the groups of people you reference were not immigrants. Rather, they emigrated from their country to the North American continent. It is perhaps misplaced to refer to those groups of people as immigrants.

Regardless, your broader point is what eventually came to be known as the United States was first settled by thousands of people leaving the European continent.

No, the first set of settlers were the Native Peoples - who apparently came in from Asia. The number I've seen here is 11,000 years later, Columbus & Spain & Portugal & etc. began to show up in the New World.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: European history came in from the east, true enough

No, the first set of settlers were the Native Peoples - who apparently came in from Asia. The number I've seen here is 11,000 years later, Columbus & Spain & Portugal & etc. began to show up in the New World.

Perhaps I did not phrase my point properly, or maybe I did. The United States is a reference to the governmental entity which exists over a fixed geographical area. My point was what came to be known as the U.S., the United States of America as governmental entity over a fixed geographical area, was established by thousands of people leaving the European continent. I was not asserting this group was the very first people on the continent of North America.