iwantwinners said:
Cave Bear said:
iwantwinners said:
Cave Bear said:
Quote:
But being foreign apparently allows you to play by different rules to some people. These people have little incentive to go through the legal immigration process. And if rejected, they know if they can just get their kid in and established, they have a political party that will fight for their asylum. When the next 5 million come in illegally, just forgive them and allow them to stay. They're established and haven't committed a crime. And it goes on and on.
Sounds good to me.
Open border, advocate. Well Okay then. How about you and I gather up 20 million of our fellow Americans and demand our way into Italy tomorrow, we'll cry victim that we came there illegally, have them educate us and our children, and collect public benefits. The irony is that Americans would support Italy in their quest to rid themselves of these crooks.
This argument would have some validity if America was in the same awful state as Mexico and Italy was the richest and most powerful country in the world. Or if Italy was our neighbor and was a nation which spent much of the past two centuries falsely claiming responsibility for protecting and guiding all of the states of the American hemisphere. Or if Italy had a political tradition of embracing mass immigration from depressed regions--you know, those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Or if the 20 million people you're hypothetically emigrating to Italy didn't represent 1/3 of their entire population, as opposed to the 1.5% of our population that your hypothetical 5 million more immigrants from Mexico represent.
so are you for open borders or not? You seem to be, then insinuate we at least need to take certain numbers of people from "poorer nations" (what **** policy in 2018), and then you stipulate that up to a certain point -- "one-third" -- the number of legal/illegal (still not sure here) immigrants is OK. Just not until, per your discretion, it becomes equal to or greater than 1/3? Maybe somebody if you're lucky we'll get there.
Is there actually a policy argument why a haphazard whatever is clever policy is both fair and in the country's best interest? Even if you think the number of visas should increase exponentially, you'd simply be advocating for a change in policy, not an ambivalence towards illegal immigration. All of what you're posting amounts to virtue signaling -- "helping these 'poor' people (no matter what the cost) and turning the other way when they break the law is the RIGHT thing to do!"
You've drawn way more from the remarks in my last post than should be drawn and still couldn't find the point. That post was a direct response to your ridiculous comparison of my willingness to allow 5 million more illegal immigrants as the long term immigration cost of amnesty to 20 million Americans trying to emigrate to Italy. I'm not for totally unrestricted immigration, but 5 million more Mexican immigrants is not a catastrophe to me given that for now and at least the immediate future they are no worse than a neutral economic proposition. They cost a little bit more in services than they bring in tax revenue but they add net to national wealth through their economic activity even after their effects on the labor market are accounted for. The real **** policy is trying to solve this problem with the Great Wall v2.0 in the 21st ****ing century paired with state police roaming their jurisdictions demanding that people who look or sound like they might be immigrants produce their papers. The solution is to fix Mexico, to fix the damn hole in the boat while we still have time instead of trying to bail out water.
These people want to be here, most of them want to work to have a better life. Best yet, they somehow still prize the idea of America as a land of safety and prosperity, something worth risking everything for a chance to be a part of. You want us to turn away that group of people when we can easily absorb the 3% of the population they currently represent?
What this is really about is the racial future of this nation, a fact that makes me wish we could split this nation in two because I think it's the patently stupid cause to fight for, a fact that is validated by its epic failures and disgraces in American history. I don't say that everyone who opposes illegal immigration is motivated by this racism, but those people are disproportionately moderate, neocon or libertarian and therefore marginal within conservatism.
America better take an opportunity to learn from the past, for a change. Rome did not die of old age, it died for ethnic and cultural bigotry. Many Germanic and Asiatic tribes were begging to be assimilated for centuries but the Romans couldn't imagine a future together and worse couldn't imagine the necessity. Demographics are as badly against us, both in our hemisphere and in the world. It's very bad news for us at a moment where isolationism is running hot.
One of the ridiculous aspects of your America --> Italy illegal immigration analogy was that Italy's population density is already 3.3 times higher than ours. China's is over 4 times higher than ours. We are not out of vacancies in this country. Your belief that a liberal immigration policy is **** makes the assumption I'm that trying to enlarge the economic underclass of this nation. I'm not. China projects to surpass us in economic power because their population is over 4 times higher than ours and they try harder to develop their citizenry as economic units. My political platform can reduce those advantages. Modernize entitlements in this nation, build Mexico and put the welcome sign out for anyone who wants to come here, live in peace and work for a better life.