Skip to comments.Principled Immigration
Posted on 05/31/2006 5:44:11 AM PDT by SuziQ
Not for the first time, the world finds itself in an age of great movements of peoples. And once again, the United States is confronted with the challenge of absorbing large numbers of newcomers. There are approximately 200 million migrants and refugees worldwide, triple the number estimated by the U.N. only 17 years ago. In the United States alone, about a million new immigrants have entered every year since 1990, bringing the total immigrant population to more than 35 million, the largest number in the nation's history. Though Americans take justifiable pride in our history as a "nation of immigrants," the challenges are more complex than those the nation previously surmounted. For sending and receiving countries alike, this is a time of exceptional stress--and yet, a moment that offers opportunities as well...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The WSJ is a broken record on illegal immigration. This time the track is "We-recognize-the-concerns-you have-but-please---for-little-Billy's-sake---open-the-borders-now."
Why didn't it surprise me to see Harvard Law Professor next to the writer's credentials?
She's also very Catholic, so that tempers her position on immigration.
Tis true. She's also extremely pro-life, and you KNOW that has to rankle most professors at Hahvahd Law.
There was nothing in the piece that said that. Her point is that we NEED immigrants, so let's be smart on the policy we put in place. She also pointed out the responsibilities on BOTH the part of the US and on the part of those who would want to move here.
Let's take a look at the BIG PICTURE here?
Aren't we ALL?..on this Great Big Globe of Green, really ALL
on this Great Big World we all share in??
What is going to happen 300 years from now when the majority of people (experts in various fields) will be living in MANY various Nations during a Year's Time??
Does THAT mean That Those people will be able to SHARE & GET all "BENIFITS" from the Nations they happen to be in at on that TIME???...at least with the ELITISTS???
Gee!! Having a ONE WORLD GOV'T! would SUUURREE Simplify everything!! Wouldn't it!!!!
(Just kidding....But LOOK for the ANTI-CHRIST to come along now--to step forward to LEAD the Republican and Conservative Party BACK to where people want it to be !!!! And THEN!! when in Office-- Pull an " EXERCIST" on us?? and go off to MARRY HILLARY CLINTON!! THUS making her FIRST LADY!! so she can rule with her Evil plans!!as has been Lucifers designs since the dawn of mankind!!--of course--this is AFTER Bill is out of the way- by having a "Nasty Accident" of being eaten alive by a pack of starving weasles that travel around in Chappaque!!hahahaha!! )
First they told me again and again, and again, that I must not have more than 2.3 children if I were to be a responsible citizen of the world.
(When those who created the first social-security systems chose 65 as the age of eligibility, they were counting on the fact that relatively few people would live beyond that age to become burdens on the state.)
They devised a plan to take a good percentage of MY money, and hoped against hope, that I wouldn't live long enough to collect any of the money they stole, while doling out what they feel is appropriate.
"the retirement of the baby-boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government
Then, if I DO LIVE, I am considered a "burden on the state" and a "strain" on the all knowing, revered federal government.
WSJ advocates open borders and cheap labor.
Screw the middle class, cheap labor means profit for tax-cheating corporations.
I once spilt PURPLE Fruit juice over the Brand new "WHITE" living room carpet--and what I SAID to my Mom & Dad to get out of a Beating I DESERVED! ( House RULES were NO DRINKING of ANY Soda/Juices/Stainable items in the Living room until after ONE YEAR of SHOWING OFF NEW CARPET!!!)!
Was,"...well look NOW folks!!--
....IF WE SPILL A GALLON M-O-R-E OF JUICE AND SPREAD IT AROUND--THEN THE WHOLE CARPET WILL LOOK PURPLE AND NO-ONE WILL HAVE EVEN KNOWN IT WAS W-H-I-T-E BEFORE!!!
Instead of taking the BLAME for my lack of Responsibilities in dealing with the Running of OUR HOUSE--I Tried to WEASLE out of it!!
Weasle OUT of it like ALL of ELECTED REPS are trying to do NOW!!
Well.."WE"(?) spilt some ILLEGALS here in America's Front Lawn!!...Let's just kid-of SPREAD them AROUND!!--cause when we make them ALL American-Citizens----( Like WE in the Senate really CARE if that happens!! hahaha)----------after a While--NO-ONE will have ever remembered they didn't all get here ILLEGALLY!! and everyone will forget that WE ALL SCREWED UP while being in charge of running this Great Nation!!...A Nation where we have the RIGHT to hide $100,000 in Our Freezers if We wish too!!( Of course--that refers to "US" and NOT "you" everyday, citizens...
---A Problem HAS OCCURED!!FIND OUT WHY and WHO is to BLAME and then FIRE them!!
---Take care Of the PROBLEM: BUILD THE WALL!!
---And then VOTE OUT THOSE who are NOT> following "OUR" Wishes when it comes to running OUR COUNTRY!!
Is this so hard??
Why? We can make our own new citizens.
We won't have to give them English as a second language.
We won't have to worry that they will serve as a fifth column, unlike immigrants from Muslim countries (if we raise them correctly).
We won't be stealing the best and brightest from countries that need these people's talents. Besides, we have our own bright minds.
We shouldn't import new people just to support an unsustainable social welfare system.
And maintaining high rates of population growth makes us vulnerable. China, for example, has to import a majority of their food to feed their huge population. They are suffering from severe environmental impacts because of that same population. We've seen the impacts of being oil dependent-it's stupid to add food dependence to the list.
This whole "we need immigrants" idea is a fallacy that has yet to be properly challenged.
There was nothing in the piece that said that. Her point is that we NEED immigrants,
Go to the third paragraph from the bottom and you will find the open borders arguments you refuse to see, namely that economically strong nations have an obligation to accomodate immigration flows.
Overall, this author is conceding a lot of ground to immigration critics about the breakdown of assimilation in the United States and the impact of mass immigration, but only speaks in generalities about how to fix it and she insists that the flow keep coming in. That attitude is what makes the bolded comment accurate.
And how do you propose to do that? Would you FORCE every family to have at least 4 children so that there would be at least two kids to pay for the Social Security of each parent?
Dr. Glendon's point is that we are NOT replacing ourselves. It's a function of an affluent society that families desire to limit the number of kids they have so as to increase their affluence. As a result, everyone moves up in economic levels, with the lowest levels being those who are in the welfare structure, and who either can't, or just simply won't work.
There is such a thing as jobs that Americans won't do, even though many won't admit it. How many young men in the ghettos or in small poor towns in Appalachia or the Midwest really want to do the kind of work that the immigrants are doing, such as gardening, landscaping, menial construction work, etc.? Employers all over the country are going begging for employees for jobs like this, but most young American men and women feel that this work is 'beneath' them. Just recall the furor from many about 'hamburger flipping jobs'. At least those are indoor, out of the weather jobs.
A case in point is the situation on the Gulf Coast and in New Orleans. Apparently there were no Americans clamoring for those destruction and re-construction jobs. Jesse Jackson came away from Houston with an empty bus when he tried to recruit black men and women to come back to New Orleans to help re-build 'their' city. Contractors have had to hire Mexicans who have come here to work. I have no idea whether these companies are checking their paperwork, but I can tell you this. These folks are being paid well for what they do. There are groups of young men who are content to all live together in crowded conditions so as to reduce their costs and increase the amount of money they will take back home with them to their families.
If there HAD been Americans who wanted to do that work, and the Mexicans were getting slave wages and beating them out of jobs, I'd be the first to be against that, but it is simply NOT the case.
You can call that 'open borders' if you like, I don't choose to.
We need to eliminate social security. It's a Ponzi scheme at best, and as you can see leads to poor policy decisions based on the need for it to continue. Just like Europe and their Muslim immigrants who were going to "solve' their benefit problems-instead they imported an entire fifth column who want to destroy the society that let them in. Great plan.
I favor private accounts, and maybe a birth benefit payment that can accrue tax free interest over a long period of time. If they would give me back the taxes I've paid in, I'd be more then happy to sign away any future SS benefits.
As far as the Gulf Coast reconstruction, I read on FR about an American crew that was SENT HOME after the cheaper illegals showed up.
We are at replacement level right now, excluding the impacts of immigration. The fact that native blacks wouldn't take the NO jobs points more to the failure of the welfare state (including items such as social security) then the inability of Americans to do those jobs. I bet if they didn't get government handouts, they'd be doing those jobs asap.
You no work, you no eat is a great motivator.
I am tired of pressing 1 for English.
Even he (or she?) wouldn't go that far! (lol)
That is the biggest MYTH in this whole mess. More of an excuse.
The problem is that the employers and employees, et al are so burdened by government taxes and regulations that the employers can't pay better wages and employees can't live on low wages. But the net result of this whole mess is illegals paying little into the system, taking MUCH more from it and sending anything they make back to Mexico instead of into the USA ecomony. All illegally.
Do you know of many young men, ages 18-25 who truly want to work as gardeners, landscapers, and construction gophers? Yes, there are some, but any contractor will tell you that it is TOUGH to find workers these days willing to put in the hours and do a good job while they're there.
I have family on the Coast, and I haven't heard anything about that from them.
Oh no, not according to the FROBL, who extol the miraculous ability of illegals to reduce costs but not lower wages.
Well, I can do a search if you want to read the article.
Of course, President Bush pulling Davis/Bacon wage protection and promising that companies hiring illegals for reconstruction would not be prosecuted didn't help either.
Nothing like support for law and order from the highest levels of government.
Who do you propose SHOULD do the work to re-build New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, if the contractors cannot find workers locally, or who are willing to live in difficult conditions in order to live there while they work? Florida had the same problem two years ago when four hurricanes hit during one season. Many construction projects were delayed because they couldn't find contractors to do the work, and costs doubled and tripled because the demand for building supplies went through the roof.
There are also some in the United States who want to close the door to newcomers simply because they are outsiders. Over the course of the twentieth century, that attitude seemed to be fading away, but in recent years sleeping nativist sentiments have been irresponsibly inflamed by anti-immigration groups. . . sovereign nations have the right to control their boundaries
What is the nature of the "right to control their boundaries?" Why is not protecting your culture and people from becoming a minority, at best, in their own homeland not part this so-called right? If that isn't a legitimate reason for controlling your borders then there is no legitimate reason for doing so. I also love the term "nativist." Why doesn't she just say racist? What is it about the nature of the debate on immigration policy that forces this little evasion? Could it be that openly calling immigration foes racist makes plain the racial nature of present immigration policies which might make the "natives" see that nature and that they, too, have group interests?
Free Republic Open Borders Lobby.
You know, those that find agreement with WSJ op eds to be reasoned presentations, including the WSJ classic Open Borders? Why Not?
Maybe some preplanning is in order. Why not have the state or counties keep a supply of building materials on hand for emergencies? Or neighborhoods band together to have supplies on hand? After all, in Florida there are hurricanes every year.
Require citizens to volunteer some time towards rebuilding in their local community/neighborhood.
Habitat for humanity.
Army corps of engineers.
Lousiana National Guard.
CCCs from California.
Out of work autoworkers from Detroit.
College students during the summer months.
Able bodied men on welfare from any state.
Convict "trustee" crews.
Off season firefighting contract crews.
OR Manufactured and modular homes.
That's just in a couple of minutes.
Offer good wages and provide some sort of housing, and they will come.
More jobs Americans wouldn't do....in 1940.
Welcome to wonderful world of globalist slavery.
From another thread on FR.
This advantage to the farmers of hiring temporary foreign workers was no accident. It was deliberate. In 1940, one grower wrote to the U.S. Department of Agriculture that if Washington were to help them find labor, the Bahamas would be a far better source than either the U.S. or its territory Puerto Rico. The vast difference between the Bahama Island labor and domestic, including Puerto Rican, wrote the farmer, is that labor transported from the Bahama Islands can be deported and sent home, if it does not work, which cannot be done in the instance of labor from domestic United States or Puerto Rico.
This moment of brutal honesty by a sugar farmer in the months before World War II gives us insight into the mind of shrewd employers throughout the decades. If your workers visa limits him to working for you, you become, in effect, the government.
A typical employer in a free market has only the power to stop paying his worker or possibly sue him if he doesnt perform promised services. But under guest-worker programs, the employer gains the power of deportation.
In recognition of the fact that the employer/guest-worker relationship exists outside of the free market, the federal government provides special protection for these guest workers, guaranteeing adequate housing, food, and other conditions. In the rest of the economy, the enforcement mechanism for the workers needs is called freedom of movement. In a free market, a dissatisfied worker can walk away from a job. In the 20th-century indentured servitude of the cane fields, no such freedom existed, dragging Big Government even deeper into the realm of business.
In 1982, workers walked off the sugar field when their bosses told them the wage they would pay for a row of sugar that day. The price wasnt worth their sweat and blood, they surmised. The next day, law enforcement greeted the workers outside their barracks, and 300 cutters were soon deported. Future cane cutters didnt try to haggle much over wages.
Cutting sugarcane in Florida was a job Americans wouldnt do. But that is true only when you take into account the whole package of cane-cutting employment. What Americans wouldnt do was subject themselves to slavery, where not only their wages but their right to hold any job in America was dependent on remaining in the good graces of the boss, on whom they also depended for food and shelter.
I work with lots of contractors. They always find someone sooner or later. Then both employer and employee get taxed to death. Put in the Fair Tax!
The Senate is not just granting amnesty to illegals, it is granting itself amnesty. Each Senator swore to uphold our laws and Constitution. They have not enforced the law. They have done nothing to stop illegal immigration. The legislation they now propose, in essence, grants themselves AMNESTY.
Fight all you want about whether illegals are getting amnesty, but there is no doubt, the legislation proposed by McCain and the other spineless Senators grants amnesty to themselves.
They are letting themselves go free. They will no longer be abdicating their duty to uphold our laws if legislation passes in its present form.
I'm not sure they will. They won't even do those jobs close to home, why would they travel some distance to do them? It's a different world from the time of the depression. Folks just aren't desperate now, with the social safety net available in most places.
I don't think you can legally COMPEL anyone, short of convicted prisoners to do any particular work at all.
What do you think both federal and contract wildland firefighters do? They can be gone months at a time, and know this when they sign on. The benefit that draws them, of course, is the overtime that they make while away from home. Or what about private contractors who are working in Iraq or Saudi Arabia-not exactly garden spots for your average westerner (not to mention the risk of getting your head cut off with a dull knife)?
Pay enough and they will come.
I'm not talking about people who already have good jobs, or WANT them, and are willing to go where they need to go for them. I'm talking about the chronically unemployed. They are the ones who would be doing the lower wage, less skilled jobs that the Mexican and Central American immigrants are doing. They are obviously NOT interested in them, or they would already be doing them and we wouldn't need the addiditional labor provided by the immigrants.