Skip to comments.Natives in U.S., Britain Getting Restless on Immigration
Posted on 11/18/2003 1:13:34 PM PST by quidnunc
London Immigration in Britain, as in the United States, is a sort of subterranean political issue. Opinion polls regularly show that the great majority of Brits and Americans favor lower levels of immigration and stricter rules on entry, but the elites (Republicans and Democrats, Labor and Tories, Big Business and Big Labor) in both countries support higher levels and laxer rules and some even favor "open borders."
This produces an unstable hegemony of the elites. Legal immigration is now almost a million new arrivals a year and the many illegal immigrants are deported only if they have committed an additional crime. And because both parties are in agreement, these major national changes pass uncriticized. Every now and then, someone proposes to ease immigration restrictions too far whereupon the people wake up and growl. For instance, last year the Bush administration floated the idea of an amnesty for the approximately 3 million illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States.
This provoked a popular outcry, the administration backed off, and both parties are now seeking to solve the riddle: How do you grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants without granting an amnesty. (Answer: Describe amnesty as "earned" legalization, which is the argument now being used to justify the McCain-Kolbe-Flake bill before Congress.)
Something similar has just happened in Britain. Immigration levels there have been rising silently in recent years, but the public only began to take notice with the recent publication of figures showing that more than 150,000 immigrants had arrived last year. Then David Blunkett, the Home Secretary in charge of immigration law, remarked that there was no "obvious limit" to the number of "economic migrants" that Britain could comfortably absorb. As with the amnesty of Mexican illegals, this provoked an outcry. And the seeming consensus on Britain's need for immigration began to fray.
Anyone familiar with the U.S. debate on immigration would find the British debate eerily similar. As in America advocates of higher immigration, like Blunkett, argue (a) that it is needed for economic growth, (b) that it benefits the host community economically, and (c) that in an aging economy pensions and other entitlements will collapse without immigrants to pay into the system. In the light of international experience, all three arguments are invalid. Take each in turn:
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Your Ellis Island must now be size of Alaska, grasshopper. America over.
That approximately covers at least 10 million more Mexicans. If I'm wrong, I'll buy each of the others a shot of tequila.
I assume you mean "Libertarian", and if so, you'd be voting for a party with THIS platform:
OFFICIAL PARTY STATEMENT
"The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States... A policy of open immigration will advance the economic well-being of all Americans... Any discussion of immigration must include a warning about the threat to civil liberties posed by many of the proposals to limit immigration. Recent legislation to restrict immigration has included calls for a national identity card for all Americans. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has proposed legislation that would require employers to consult a national registry of workers before hiring anyone, effectively giving the U.S. government control over every hiring decision by every business in America. Other legislation has contained provisions penalizing people who fail to "inform" on people they "suspect" might be illegal immigrants. Such Orwellian nightmares have no place in a free society, but are the natural outgrowth of an obsession with restricting immigration."
2000 LP Party Platform - Immigration
We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics. We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference. We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
Wow, brillant plan from the LP. Let's have open borders so the country's population will swell to 1 billion people within a few decades, that will surely bring about "economic well-being" for "everyone" already here. And abolish all border agencies and controls, we can have the U.S. and Mexico effectively merge, I'm sure that's a great step towards liberty and freedom. We all know much they value the will of the people in Mexico, a shining example of democracy < /sarcasm>
It's an interesting idea-- vote Libertarian to "stop" open borders. I had a "pro-life" Democrat friend who told me she was voting Democrat because the Republicans weren't doing enough to stop abortion. You guys must have attended the same school of logic.
I guess I need to study the "Constitution Party", or maybe dust off all of that Confederate money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.