Back to the term "legal immigrant", I have often found it depends on which side of the "fence" you're on. I have a friend whose parents are dead set against modifying any immigration laws, even though they themselves are immigrants, and they often talk with some sense of pride on how they bamboozled the immigration authorities to get the mother in (I won't go into details, but it was illegal and could have resulted in her deportation if it had ever been discovered), but they maintain this is "different"; there are also many who just overstayed visitor's visas/entries) who came from northern/western European countries (my grandmother was one) and had no problem living in a society where they could easily blend in, work, drive, even collect social security because our society was not so regimented and documented, but that was also "different"--these new immigrants are breaking the law, they weren't (although I'm not sure why).
The point is, like it or not, our immigration law and policy has created a permanent underclass of people who must be dealt with. And since deporting each and everyone of them would be impractical (not to mention horribly expensive and near impossible), we need to deal with the problem we now have. Bitching about why it occurred does nothing to remedy it, and labeling people "illegal" does little as well. Of course, like every other problem, Congress refuses to address this one (and there is ample blame on both sides of the aisle for this), but it's not going to get better by itself, even with slogans and namecalling. Most of the "illegals" are not criminals, but are hardworking family people being squeezed on all sides--from employers paying them below minimum wage or requiring extra hours at no pay (and usually under hazardous conditions), to states denying them drivers licenses (allegedly because of 9/11, although I am not sure why, a drivers license is not proof that one is in the US legally), to landlords that cram them into overcrowded and unsafe housing at high rents, ... They live under the radar by not reporting these and other offenses against them, just hoping that they will be left alone. They're no different from the thousands of immigrants who preceded them and shouldn't be treated as pariahs.
We need a dialog and action to address this issue, but it needs to be an open dialog without resorting to namecalling and slogans. We cannot accept everyone who wants to come here, but we do need to deal with the situation we have and set up a fair system to prevent it from just arising again.
What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
A principled Libertarian has to be against all restrictions on immigration-emigration.
Immigration laws are just a way of those who get here first (when there were no restrictions like my Danish ancestors) saying "fuck you, I got mine now go away". There is no theory of rights
which justifies locking other people outside our borders merely because we invented some new laws in the meantime.
yrs,
rubato
Immigration laws are just a way of those who get here first (when there were no restrictions like my Danish ancestors) saying "fuck you, I got mine now go away". There is no theory of rights
which justifies locking other people outside our borders merely because we invented some new laws in the meantime.
yrs,
rubato
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
If one thinks about it logically, (that means I'm giving you a pass rube; you need read no further) it makes perfect sense that any system of legal immigration would skew towards providing legal residence for those who already have relatives living legally in the country...
In general, people who have family ready to sponsor them are less likely to be a burden on the state. They have an existing familial support structure that will help them integrate into American society; provide them with a home, support, help them find employment, etc., so that they can ultimately become productive, contributing citizens...
Seems eminently sensible. Nothing morally questionable about it.
In general, people who have family ready to sponsor them are less likely to be a burden on the state. They have an existing familial support structure that will help them integrate into American society; provide them with a home, support, help them find employment, etc., so that they can ultimately become productive, contributing citizens...
Seems eminently sensible. Nothing morally questionable about it.
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
LMAO!!!we invented some new laws in the meantime.
Aren't you the fella who's always bloviating in favor of the state promulgating "new laws" to micromanage every aspect of people's lives, from determining what kind of bags they can use to what kind of food they can eat, to whether or not they ought to be allowed to smoke in their own home?
But suddenly you're offended when "new laws" are put in place to protect the country's borders...
"Rubato, the Libertarian"...
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9006
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Not being either Gob or Meade, I do not have time to respond in depth. However, I agree with everything BigRR said.
I also think immigration rules should be greatly loosened rather than tightened, in that new immigrants are beneficial to our country, and allowing them to enter freely, safely and monitored through open borders is a far better policy than driving immigration underground.
I also think immigration rules should be greatly loosened rather than tightened, in that new immigrants are beneficial to our country, and allowing them to enter freely, safely and monitored through open borders is a far better policy than driving immigration underground.
GAH!
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21284
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
"Freely, safely and monitored through open borders" is contradictory both internally and to the notion of immigration rules, loosened or otherwise.
An "open" border is one without regulation. Does the word "freely" (which means without restriction) comport with any kind of policy other than unrestricted immigration?
Do you perhaps mean a closed border with more relaxed rules that are rigorously enforced? Or do you mean a truly open border without rules but we employ civil servants to watch the crossings on CCTV for no particular purpose?
An "open" border is one without regulation. Does the word "freely" (which means without restriction) comport with any kind of policy other than unrestricted immigration?
Do you perhaps mean a closed border with more relaxed rules that are rigorously enforced? Or do you mean a truly open border without rules but we employ civil servants to watch the crossings on CCTV for no particular purpose?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9006
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
No, I mean borders open to the free movement of people and commerce, regulated only to ensure public health and safety.
This is an area where I find myself in fundamental agreement with a number of Cato Institute economists and their progeny, some of whom can be found here: http://openborders.info/.
This is an area where I find myself in fundamental agreement with a number of Cato Institute economists and their progeny, some of whom can be found here: http://openborders.info/.
GAH!
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21284
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
That's an interesting article and Douglass was an amazing man. Thanks for the link.
There can be of course no proof (either way) as to the existence of a "fundamental right" to go to live and work wherever one wishes, whenever one desires. It does involve the issue (anathema to many) as to whether "rights" are in fact natural, universal and fundamental or are, in actuality, determined, created and limited by a majority (or minority) of persons within the social construct.
Of more immediacy perhaps, actual conditions during Douglass' time and even later were significantly different than they are today. An expandable continent with primarily self-actuated agricultural homesteading and burgeoning industrial employment opportunities is vastly different to the condition of a restricted continent with all resources already "owned" or allocated.
So too is a nation which has by our time assumed that public financial welfare is the responsibility of the state and that all the wretched refuse etc. are entitled to free everything at taxpayer expense (there may be some hyperbole there but don't let it detract from the point). Contrast that with Douglass' environment which was one in which the individual Chinese, Hispanic, Caucasian or any other variety of human was perfectly entitled to starve to death in a hovel without government interest and intervention.
It was in fact precisely the precarious condition of the working class/poor that drove both societal philanthropy, state regulated benefits (Soc sec., labour laws, health and safety, worker's comp., unemployment benefit, etc.) AND increased restrictions on immigration as the 20th century dawned and matured. Yes - fear of communism, anarchy and other political factors also were drivers toward tightened borders.
The liberal view - which is almost laissez-faire - must explain how it is that adding millions more people benefits this nation AND offer a convincing argument that those already here (us) are in fact living in a paradise without problems and NOT in a steadily deteriorating society. Logically it seems to me that there's nothing wrong in the USA and we should probably just fold Congress up and have it go home because there is no need for further divisive "corrective" actions to keep the ship of state afloat.
There can be of course no proof (either way) as to the existence of a "fundamental right" to go to live and work wherever one wishes, whenever one desires. It does involve the issue (anathema to many) as to whether "rights" are in fact natural, universal and fundamental or are, in actuality, determined, created and limited by a majority (or minority) of persons within the social construct.
Of more immediacy perhaps, actual conditions during Douglass' time and even later were significantly different than they are today. An expandable continent with primarily self-actuated agricultural homesteading and burgeoning industrial employment opportunities is vastly different to the condition of a restricted continent with all resources already "owned" or allocated.
So too is a nation which has by our time assumed that public financial welfare is the responsibility of the state and that all the wretched refuse etc. are entitled to free everything at taxpayer expense (there may be some hyperbole there but don't let it detract from the point). Contrast that with Douglass' environment which was one in which the individual Chinese, Hispanic, Caucasian or any other variety of human was perfectly entitled to starve to death in a hovel without government interest and intervention.
It was in fact precisely the precarious condition of the working class/poor that drove both societal philanthropy, state regulated benefits (Soc sec., labour laws, health and safety, worker's comp., unemployment benefit, etc.) AND increased restrictions on immigration as the 20th century dawned and matured. Yes - fear of communism, anarchy and other political factors also were drivers toward tightened borders.
The liberal view - which is almost laissez-faire - must explain how it is that adding millions more people benefits this nation AND offer a convincing argument that those already here (us) are in fact living in a paradise without problems and NOT in a steadily deteriorating society. Logically it seems to me that there's nothing wrong in the USA and we should probably just fold Congress up and have it go home because there is no need for further divisive "corrective" actions to keep the ship of state afloat.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9006
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Please feel free to peruse that site further than an introductory blog post, particularly the portions that pretty well debunk all the objections you raise, as well as more that you haven't (use the handy pull-down menus at the top); like I said, I don't have time to summarize them all for you, but you are well known to have excess time on your hands, so get clicking and don't let them be the devil's workshop.
And the Open Borders site is hardly "the liberal view," as it is run by conservative/libertarian/Chicago School types. Which is why you might be able to characterize it as somewhat "laissez faire" in its approach. But it is a lot more sophisticated than that.
And the Open Borders site is hardly "the liberal view," as it is run by conservative/libertarian/Chicago School types. Which is why you might be able to characterize it as somewhat "laissez faire" in its approach. But it is a lot more sophisticated than that.
GAH!
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21284
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Yes but there's
I shall get on to that right away!
And I did. I hope you have time to help me find the "debunking". I found blog posts stating both sides of the discussion with very little "debunking" from any one against an opposing view.
I shall get on to that right away!
And I did. I hope you have time to help me find the "debunking". I found blog posts stating both sides of the discussion with very little "debunking" from any one against an opposing view.
Since you introduced the website (an interesting and valuable one) in support of an open border view, how do you respond (probably not at all) to the arguments against? And you're right - I didn't include all of them due to not necessarily agreeing with all of them.The goal of the site is to foster discussion of “open borders” and collect the best arguments on both sides. While the people who have created and are involved with the site tend to generally be fairly pro-open borders, the site content pages make every effort to fairly represent all viewpoints, including the viewpoints we disagree with.
Last edited by MajGenl.Meade on Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Hyperbole aside, there is no reason to assume that unrestricted immigration will automatically give everyone who comes access to the princely benefits those already here have (and it's hardly "free everything"); right now immigrants are generally not permitted most of such benefits for several years or more and there is no reason to believe this could not be continued unless certain of the benefits (e.g. health care) were perceived to be in the public interest.So too is a nation which has by our time assumed that public financial welfare is the responsibility of the state and that all the wretched refuse etc. are entitled to free everything at taxpayer expense (there may be some hyperbole there but don't let it detract from the point).
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21284
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Oh you do exaggerate. You're going to assert that immigrants are not entitled to benefits for years? That's news to me when I had my ARC. Surely you are not naïve enough to ignore the costs to society that unrestricted immigration would bring? One is not speaking of immigrants (legal) today who are here but of future consequence. Illegals of course get all kinds of benefits.
Oh and Sue - by liberal I mean "generous" (of course)
You're going to assert that immigrants are not entitled to benefits for years? That's news to me when I had my ARC. Surely you are not naïve enough to ignore the costs to society that unrestricted immigration would bring? One is not speaking of immigrants (legal) today who are here but of future consequence. Illegals of course get all kinds of benefits.Oh and Sue - by liberal I mean "generous" (of course)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Please expand on what government funded benefits illegal aliens get. I would love to see it. Now I will admit they are eligible for public education, but then the taxes they pay through their rent help fund this; however they are not eligible for most social welfare benefits--e.g. they are ineligible to collect unemployment even though they pay into the system. Most of the "benefits" they get are privately funded by charitable groups, not the government.
As for social welfare benefits, even legal aliens are generally denied most government benefits, from Medicaid to welfare, for a period of 5 years. Some of these limitations are different for permanent residents (and some entitled to asylum), but generally if you are sponsored, the support obligations of your sponsor will prevent you from collecting them until the waiting period is over. Please let me know what sort of benefits you contend you were eligible for when you became a LPR.
Would unlimited immigration have a cost? Of course, but it has its benefits as well. And some of the costs can be controlled by legislation and waiting periods, etc.
Edited to Add:
This link gives a pretty good summary of benefits for LPRs (most need 5 years residency or 10 quarters of work or both):
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... ceive.html
As for social welfare benefits, even legal aliens are generally denied most government benefits, from Medicaid to welfare, for a period of 5 years. Some of these limitations are different for permanent residents (and some entitled to asylum), but generally if you are sponsored, the support obligations of your sponsor will prevent you from collecting them until the waiting period is over. Please let me know what sort of benefits you contend you were eligible for when you became a LPR.
Would unlimited immigration have a cost? Of course, but it has its benefits as well. And some of the costs can be controlled by legislation and waiting periods, etc.
Edited to Add:
This link gives a pretty good summary of benefits for LPRs (most need 5 years residency or 10 quarters of work or both):
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... ceive.html
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
I entered Aus on a spousal visa, with permanent residency granted. I applied for and went through the system for citizenship, and got it. (I was interviewed on the tele remember?)Migration programme
There are a number of different types of Australian immigration, classed under different categories of visa:
Employment visas
Australian working visas are most commonly granted to highly skilled workers. Candidates are assessed against a points-based system, granting points for certain standards of education. These types of visas are often sponsored by individual states, which recruit workers according to specific needs. Visas may also be granted to applicants sponsored by an Australian business. The most popular form of sponsored working visa is the 457 visa
Student visas
Foreign students are actively encouraged to study in Australia by the Australian Government. There are a number of categories of student visa, most of which require a confirmed offer from an educational institution.
Family visas
Visas are often granted on the basis of family ties in Australia. There are a number of different types of Australian family visas, including Contributory Parent visas and Spouse visas.
Skilled Visas
A new electronic process for managing Australia's Skilled Migration Program. Intending migrants without an Employer Sponsor will need to complete an "Expression of Interest" (EOI), then based on the information provided, will be allocated a score against the points test. Skill Select will then rank intending migrants scores against other EOI's. - The highest ranking scores across a range of occupations may then be invited to apply for a Skilled Visa.
Employment and family visas can often lead to Australian citizenship, however this requires the applicant to have lived in Australia for at least four years with at least one year as a Permanent Resident
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
The gov must secure the borders first because if any kind of amnesty is granted, more will pour through as they want to get in on this wave of amnesty or "assume" another amnesty will forthcoming.
Once the border is secure, then we can figure out what to do with those already here.
I live in Farmingville Long Island NY which is also known as "Hildago north" to the illegal mexicans living here. And we have plenty. I do have to commend Brookhaven town for cracking down on the "slum" houses the illegals lived in. They were either bulldozed (as they were beyond being fixed) or forced the landlords to fix them up. Still, they rent to the illegals which is still illegal as the zoning is for single family houses. But at least most of the houses are kept neat.
Their pay is not too bad either. Last time I checked it was between $100 and $150 a day cash for a 10 hour day (including a 1/2 hour lunch). The contractors pick them up either where they live or at the 7-11 although the 7-11 pickup is usually for "extra" workers that are needed that day and not part of their regular crew. And most of the contractors using the illegal labor do not cheat them out of pay. The contractors know if they do, they will not get the crew back that they have time and training invested in. And $100/per 10 hour day is $10 an hour cash. What's that for a legal job, $14/hour?
And the jobs that are being done are jobs that legal people would do. Carpentry, masonry, landscaping, roofing, etc. I know of many people in the rooms of AA who would work at these jobs but cannot get hired. Instead they are flipping burgers at McD's for $8.50 an hour.
I would venture a guess that even if the illegals were granted legal work permits, most would stay working off the books and those that hire them would continue to pay them in cash.
I could go on about what I have witnessed in my town, but for now I will stop.
Once the border is secure, then we can figure out what to do with those already here.
I live in Farmingville Long Island NY which is also known as "Hildago north" to the illegal mexicans living here. And we have plenty. I do have to commend Brookhaven town for cracking down on the "slum" houses the illegals lived in. They were either bulldozed (as they were beyond being fixed) or forced the landlords to fix them up. Still, they rent to the illegals which is still illegal as the zoning is for single family houses. But at least most of the houses are kept neat.
Their pay is not too bad either. Last time I checked it was between $100 and $150 a day cash for a 10 hour day (including a 1/2 hour lunch). The contractors pick them up either where they live or at the 7-11 although the 7-11 pickup is usually for "extra" workers that are needed that day and not part of their regular crew. And most of the contractors using the illegal labor do not cheat them out of pay. The contractors know if they do, they will not get the crew back that they have time and training invested in. And $100/per 10 hour day is $10 an hour cash. What's that for a legal job, $14/hour?
And the jobs that are being done are jobs that legal people would do. Carpentry, masonry, landscaping, roofing, etc. I know of many people in the rooms of AA who would work at these jobs but cannot get hired. Instead they are flipping burgers at McD's for $8.50 an hour.
I would venture a guess that even if the illegals were granted legal work permits, most would stay working off the books and those that hire them would continue to pay them in cash.
I could go on about what I have witnessed in my town, but for now I will stop.
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Getting government assistance for their American-born children might be considered a benefit to some people, but other than receiving emergency medical care I don't believe illegal aliens qualify for any benefits on their own.Big RR wrote:Please expand on what government funded benefits illegal aliens get.
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
Most of the proposals I have read, including Obama's EO, require payment of back taxes for a period of time to qualify for the program; this will make the persons much more visible, as well as the employers. I'd also be very surprised if some employers were not taking advantage of the workers, because there are usually a lot more persons looking/waiting for work than there are jobs (and most of them are skilled carpenters, masons, roofers, etc. before they come here--they are not really trained by the contractors except for the few that run the job sites or purchase materials).I would venture a guess that even if the illegals were granted legal work permits, most would stay working off the books and those that hire them would continue to pay them in cash.
All in all, giving them work permits will make it much more difficult for them to avoid taxes, and it will also force employers to collect the taxes and to carry requisite insurances such as workers compensation in case they are injured. They will be required to take safety precautions as well, both by the government and the insurers. It makes a lot more sense. As far as I can see, paying on the books would be better for all concerned.
Joe Guy--
While some might consider it a benefit to the undocumented alien, it is actually a benefit given to a US citizen, the same as any other US citizen can get.Getting government assistance for their American-born children might be considered a benefit to some people
I agree, charity emergency medical assistance (I hesitate to call it care as there is no real follow up) is the only government funded benefit these people can qualify for. I used to sit on the Board of a free clinic that offered free/reduced cost care to all regardless of immigration status, and we did not accept any federal funds because of that policy and the requirements of many programs; medical care among the undocumented is pretty poor, and there are many with chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension who cannot afford to treat them. A few dollars for pills could prevent the emergency services for the stroke or heart attack, but many appear to be too shortsighted to see this.
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
I can't believe I'm seeing people argue in favor of completely open borders...
That's just absolute madness...
I saw a poll recently that indicated that given their druthers, 170 million people world wide would come here...
And that's before we announce "come one come all"...
Can you imagine what that kind of influx of population would do to this country? (Or any country...we wouldn't have to worry about terrorists coming in; the sheer numbers would completely destroy our society and quality of life...)
As I said, absolute madness...
It's so absurd it can't even serve as a minimally rational starting point for a discussion...
That's just absolute madness...
I saw a poll recently that indicated that given their druthers, 170 million people world wide would come here...
And that's before we announce "come one come all"...
Can you imagine what that kind of influx of population would do to this country? (Or any country...we wouldn't have to worry about terrorists coming in; the sheer numbers would completely destroy our society and quality of life...)
As I said, absolute madness...
It's so absurd it can't even serve as a minimally rational starting point for a discussion...
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
oh yes, please let s have a billion people here. life would be so much better.... sheesh.
let s just annex mexico....
...or maybe find some middle ground.
let s just annex mexico....
...or maybe find some middle ground.
Re: What’s A “Legal Immigrant”, Anyway?
But if we would all just hold hands and sing in harmony, we would need no borders for we would share all of our resources. No one would go hungry. Equality for all men & woman of every color. God's bouquet.
The axis of evil would crumble and rise again as part of a new and peaceful world. Russia would export nesting dolls of happiness with smiling faces and messages of love. Iran would open its borders to gay people and allow women to have the same rights as men.
I imagine that I have a dream...
The axis of evil would crumble and rise again as part of a new and peaceful world. Russia would export nesting dolls of happiness with smiling faces and messages of love. Iran would open its borders to gay people and allow women to have the same rights as men.
I imagine that I have a dream...