# Open Borders



## sky dancer

I thought this idea deserves it's own thread.  Here is a clip from an essay to start the topic going:

"Israel&#8217;s experience is instructive. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the mass exodus of Russian Jews swelled Israel&#8217;s working-age population by 8 percent in two years and by more than 15 percent between 1989 and 1997 &#8212; the equivalent of 15 million foreigners unexpectedly arriving in the United States over the next two years, and 29 million by 2016. Jews everywhere have an automatic right to settle in Israel, which leaves the country open to mass inflows of immigrants, irrespective of the country&#8217;s economic needs and circumstances. 

The influx of Russian Jews in the 1990s posed a severe test of the economic viability of Israel&#8217;s &#8220;right of return&#8221; policy. After all, the newcomers didn&#8217;t speak Hebrew and didn&#8217;t have jobs to go to. Yet as I explain in detail in my book Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them, Israel was able to absorb this huge and unexpected inflow of immigrants without a rise in unemployment, and with only a temporary fall in wages. The upshot is clear: even when migration is motivated by political crisis rather than economic demand, flexible advanced economies can absorb large numbers of immigrants with scarcely any cost to native workers."

When Britain opened its borders to the Poles and other East Europeans, all 75 million people in those much poorer countries could conceivably have moved, but in fact only a fraction have, and most have already left again. Many are, in effect, international commuters, splitting their time between Britain and Poland. Of course, some will end up settling, but most won&#8217;t. Most people don&#8217;t want to leave home at all, let alone leave it forever: they want to go work abroad for a while to learn English and earn enough to buy a house or set up a business back home. 

Studies show that most Mexican migrants have similar aspirations. If they could come and go freely, most would move only temporarily. But perversely, U.S. border controls end up making many stay for good, because crossing the border is so risky and costly that once a person has got across he tends to stay. A Mexican who overstays his visa knows that if he returns home, he will never be able to reenter the United States legally. 


Open Borders Work, Part 2


----------



## Mad Scientist

Open borders only provides cheap illegal alien slave labor for business and depresses wages by increasing the pool of workers.
If the people are smart, and I'm not saying they are, but if they're smart, they will want the borders secured. Not *closed*, just *secured* so that we may *regulate* who comes in.

Think about it. In this economy, do you want to compete for jobs against Americans, or Mexicans *and* Americans?


----------



## sky dancer

I'm just waiting to see what happens with this topic.  It's very difficult to get people out of their ruts when discussing immigration.

If all the people that are illegally in the US for jobs became legal overnight--the grouches would continue to grouse.

The issue is not really who is here legally and who is not.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> I'm just waiting to see what happens with this topic.  It's very difficult to get people out of their ruts when discussing immigration.
> 
> If all the people that are illegally in the US for jobs became legal overnight--the grouches would continue to grouse.
> 
> *The issue is not really who is here legally and who is not.*




Obviously you have no problem with illegal aliens in the U.S.  Perhaps you are one yourself, who knows.  And obviously your 'issue' is not their illegality.  We're in a rut because we object to people sneaking across the border, taking U.S. jobs, leaching off of the system, not paying taxes, committing crimes and not being punished for them and just being parasites?  Ok, I admit it -- I'm in a rut.  

So now you want to wave a magic wand like the man behind the curtain and make all the illegals legal overnight?  Why should they get a free ride?  Why shouldn't they be booted out and sent to the back of the line?  What makes these people so damned special that they can just sneak in here and stay?


----------



## sky dancer

Zoom-boing said:


> Obviously you have no problem with illegal aliens in the U.S.  Perhaps you are one yourself, who knows.  And obviously your 'issue' is not their illegality.  We're in a rut because we object to people sneaking across the border, taking U.S. jobs, leaching off of the system, not paying taxes, committing crimes and not being punished for them and just being parasites?  Ok, I admit it -- I'm in a rut.
> 
> So now you want to wave a magic wand like the man behind the curtain and make all the illegals legal overnight?  Why should they get a free ride?  Why shouldn't they be booted out and sent to the back of the line?  What makes these people so damned special that they can just sneak in here and stay?



What I'd like to do in this thread is discuss the *idea* of open borders.  There is a book I'd like to read by Jason Riley, a writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page called _LET THEM IN_.  
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1592403492/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1[/ame]


----------



## Mad Scientist

sky dancer said:


> What I'd like to do in this thread is discuss the *idea* of open borders.


Uh, I think I *did* discuss the idea of open borders. Perhaps you just want someone to agree with you?
If you really want to discuss the "idea" of open borders then go here:
http://saveourstate.org/index.php
http://www.sos.orgRead up on those who are "living the dream" of open borders on a daily basis. Post a little and see how they respond to your "idea" of open borders.


----------



## xsited1

Have you heard of Jason Riley?  He recently wrote a new book about this.  

In a provocative new book, Jason Riley makes the case for welcoming more legal immigrants to the United States. Drawing on history, scholarly studies and first-hand reporting, Riley argues that today's newcomers are fueling America's prosperity and dynamism. He challenges the prevailing views on talk radio and cable TV that immigrants are overpopulating the country, stealing jobs, depressing wages, bankrupting social services, filling prisons, resisting assimilation and promoting big government. 

[YOUTUBE]A3q9K3NFRlI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## sky dancer

I am just learning about Mr Riley's book.


----------



## sky dancer

Mad Scientist said:


> Uh, I think I *did* discuss the idea of open borders. Perhaps you just want someone to agree with you?
> If you really want to discuss the "idea" of open borders then go here:
> Save Our State - Home
> http://www.sos.orgRead up on those who are "living the dream" of open borders on a daily basis. Post a little and see how they respond to your "idea" of open borders.



saveourstate is a nativist organization, isn't it?  That's another topic--nativism and anti-immigration extremism.

Here is an idea to open the borders--and completely eliminate 'immigration illegality'.  I would think that would be of some interest to you to investigate.


----------



## sky dancer

The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job. 

American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others. 

Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration by Harry Binswanger -- Capitalism Magazine


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: "This is our country, we let in who we want." But who is "we"? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.
> 
> American land is not the collective property of some entity called "the U.S. government." Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, "We have the right to decide who is allowed in" means some individuals--those with the most votes--claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.
> 
> Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration by Harry Binswanger -- Capitalism Magazine


Just... THROW OPEN THE BORDER aye Sky... well, I can't believe you think this is a good idea, unless of course YOU are an illegal alien yourself, which you very well may be. At this point, you've given me every reason to believe you are, and not one to believe you're not. But, here's a little reading to chew on...



*A Good Deal or a Pig in a Poke?*

President George Washington warned the nation against foreign entanglements: "&#8216;Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world."43 Washington, who had invested blood, sweat, and tears in winning independence and establishing the United States, counseled: _So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils . . . facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, . . . unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained[,] . . . it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country. . . . 

. . . The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.44 (emphasis in original) _

With regard to SPP, NAFTA, and other "free trade" deals of the sort, in which immigration and the ceding of national sovereignty have increased, the Bush administration would do well to heed the wisdom of the first U.S. president. 


*Marriage to Mexico?*

Beyond the core threat to national sovereignty that SPP poses to each of the member states, Mexico presents its own set of problems in the prospect of greater integration with the United States and Canada. By far, Mexico is the chief sending country of immigration to the United States, both legal and illegal. Mexicans make up some 30 percent of the foreign-born U.S. population, with more than half of Mexican immigrants being illegal aliens.45 Canada sends only a fraction of the immigrants to the United States that Mexico does &#8212; both legal and illegal. Mexico is a Third World nation sharing a 2,000-mile land border with the pre-eminent First World nation. 

Harvard&#8217;s Samuel Huntington has chronicled how Latin American and Western, in this case Mexican and American, cultures differ fundamentally, as well as Latino, especially Mexican, stubborn resistance to assimilation here.46 Latin American civilization is characterized as "corporatist, authoritarian."47 Pursuing a significantly different historical path than its northern neighbors, Mexico derives from "superstitious enthusiasms of Spain and Portugal[,] . . . discontents in the Spanish and Portuguese dominions."48 

Sadly for Mexico and its Latino cohort, those nations developed a society of "insecurity, bad government, corruption, and economic retardation. . . . At the top, a small group of rascals, well taught by their earlier colonial masters, looted freely. Below, the masses squatted and scraped."49 No agreement signed by elites can sweep away such long-ingrained, integral characteristics of corruption in a society. SPP cannot. Nor could any United Nations-style bureaucracy. 

The Heritage Foundation ranks nations by their degree of economic freedom. The United States is the fourth most free nation in the world; Canada is 10th; Mexico lags far behind at 49th.50 Not exactly a match made in Heaven on the compatibility scale. 

The U.S. ranking is first of 29 countries in the Americas, with a much higher score than the region&#8217;s average: "The United States enjoys high levels of investment freedom, trade freedom, financial freedom, property rights, business freedom, and freedom from corruption."51 Canada ranks second in the region, also earning an above-average score for the Americas: "A strong rule of law ensures property rights, a low level of corruption, and transparent application of the country&#8217;s admittedly thorough commercial code."52 

By contrast, Mexico pales beside its northern neighbors. An endemic ineffectiveness in its civil government, coupled with ingrained corruption, and monopolistic and socialistic elements equal a national economy better than much of the region, but not by much on average. "Freedom from corruption [in Mexico] is weak and is the only factor worse than the world average. . . . A weak judicial system produces slow resolution of cases and is subject to fairly significant corruption."53 In fact, the Heritage report cites Mexico&#8217;s "freedom from corruption" rating at 35 percent, placing that country 65th of 158 nations. Both investment freedom and private property rights rate no better than 50 percent.54 

Because of Mexico&#8217;s endemic corruption, putting American and Canadian hopes in Mexico securing its southern border amounts to a leap of blind faith. Mexico&#8217;s lax, corrupt security perimeter today leaks badly. Chances of Mexican border security improving appreciably, even with American and Canadian help, are slim. The New York Times reported that, even with 170,000 deportations last year, thousands of illegal Central American aliens slip across Mexico&#8217;s southern border (the one that, under the SPP, would become America&#8217;s and Canada&#8217;s de facto border). "Corruption is rampant," and corrupt Mexican soldiers and police officers means that "a majority [of illegal aliens] gets through."55 Mexico&#8217;s track record of ferreting out corruption, faithfully cooperating with its neighbors on stopping drug and human traffickers, or getting real, sustained results has been meager, to put it mildly. 

To American highways and roads, Mexican trucks will soon have full access, despite American concerns regarding public safety, fairness, and the various unintended consequences, especially on American truckers&#8217; livelihoods. The Bush administration has forced a "pilot project" involving 100 Mexican trucking companies. Yet American truckers will have to wait at least six months later before gaining access to Mexican roads.56 

Liberalizing cross-border trucking with Mexico does much, much more than further trade. It expands the opportunity to smuggle illegal aliens, international sex slaves, drugs, and firearms into the United States. Moreover, criminal enterprises in Mexico will gain yet another means of laundering their illicit activities, profiting from them, and expanding them (or simply making it easier for them to conduct current criminal activity) that encroaches on the United States and threatens American public safety.57 

Similarly, public health threats will increase and be exacerbated by SPP&#8217;s erasure of controlled national borders. Mexico is among many Third World countries where exotic diseases proliferate. For instance, the "deadly hemorrhagic form of dengue fever is increasing dramatically in Mexico, and experts predict a surge throughout Latin America."58 Latin American migration helps spread this disease, where migrants take new strains of this and other viruses with them into other nations, abetting resistance to medicines. In the instance of dengue fever, no drug treatment exists. 

SPP will increase the likelihood that diseases previously uncommon or eradicated in the United States will enter and infect Americans and Canadians. With its much more sophisticated (and expensive) health care system, the United States will see even more Mexican patients arriving at its clinics and emergency rooms seeking charity care. This surge in demand will present even harsher financial strains on an already stressed health care system; privately insured Americans will see even more health care costs shifted onto their wallets. The result assuredly will be less health care for Americans at greater costs (both public and private).


----------



## 007

Here is an absolute MUST WATCH...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ[/ame]


----------



## sky dancer

I admit it.  I'm in the US illegally.

"Transnationalization is not a slogan. Transnationalization is a process, and it is a project. Inside and outside Europe, migrants move from one country to another one, looking for a better future, refusing subordination and exploitation. Crossing the borders, migrants are transnationalizing the world. This process is already taking place, that is why the transnationalization of migrants' struggles, against the border regime, must become a project too."
http://www.noborder.org/item.php?id=447


----------



## tigerbob

Pale Rider said:


> Just... THROW OPEN THE BORDER aye Sky... well, I can't believe you think this is a good idea, unless of course YOU are an illegal alien yourself, which you very well may be. At this point, you've given me every reason to believe you are, and not one to believe you're not. But, here's a little reading to chew on...



Someone doesn't share your views so they must be an illegal alien?  Hmmm...

That said, throwing open the borders would be a potentially disastrous decision.  It has recently happened in Britain.  The only market sector that is genuinely benefitting in terms of new ideas and dynamism from the Eastern European influx is that of crime.

While there are plenty of smart, honest, hardworking Eastern Europeans in Britain, many of them choose to earn a living on (comparatively high) British wages and send the money home to the family in the old country.  In the meantime, British people whose jobs they have taken are unemployed.  An unhealthy dynamic.

Australia's system of points is, in my opinion, a good one - "you're welcome to come to Australia if you bring us skills that are in short supply".  I'm paraphrasing, but you get my drift.


----------



## sky dancer

Jason Riley is a conservative African-American and a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. 

Here is a quote from Jason Riley while being interviewed by Paul Gigot:

"The reason they were breaking the law is because we have a policy in which too many immigrants are chasing too few visas. I believe that the best way to reduce illegal immigration and to prevent illegal workers working in factories is to give people who come here to work more ways to come legally. The best way to to decrease illegal immigration is to provide more legal ways to come here to work. And we know that this is effective because we tried it before. We had a bracero program after World War II to take care of a shortage of farm workers. And when that program was in effect, illegal immigration from Mexico was reduced to a trickle. Now there are all kinds of problems in terms of worker exploitation with this program so Iwouldn't recommend resurrecting it in the exact form; we'd have to tinker with it. But the fundamental principle is sound. If you give people more legal ways to come you get less illegal immigration." 
Let Them In: WSJ Editor Argues for Open Borders | NewsBusters.org


----------



## AVG-JOE

I say open the borders up.  Just make damn sure we know who is here and make damn sure all visitors have a means for feeding themselves.  There should also be some sort of bonus for being a bona fide citizen like the right to own property or the ability to earn $30,000 tax free.

-Joe


----------



## sky dancer

AVG-JOE said:


> I say open the borders up.  Just make damn sure we know who is here and make damn sure all visitors have a means for feeding themselves.  There should also be some sort of bonus for being a bona fide citizen like the right to own property or the ability to earn $30,000 tax free.
> 
> -Joe



It would be a lot easier to vet out the criminals if the borders were open.


----------



## Gunny

sky dancer said:


> I'm just waiting to see what happens with this topic.  It's very difficult to get people out of their ruts when discussing immigration.
> 
> If all the people that are illegally in the US for jobs became legal overnight--the grouches would continue to grouse.
> 
> The issue is not really who is here legally and who is not.



You're damned right.  You make all the illegals legal and guess what?  You just killed out economy.  Make them legal and they have to be paid minimum wage at least.  You know as well as I do no one can live on minimum wage.  There attraction to the employer who now has to pay minimum way and unemployment tax just went to nil.  The employer can't afford as many anymore either, so he cuts a few, putting them on welfare or unemployment.  Most illegals are unskilled labor, so they aren't going to just find another job.

In the meantime, MORE illegals pour over the border, become the new illegal class, the employers hire them instead, and the old illegal class is now the new welfare class supported by our tax dollars.

Good job.


----------



## sky dancer

Whatever you say, Gunny.


Make all the illegals legal and you don't have an illegal immigration problem.  You make the best argument for Open Borders.  It sounds to me that immigration would self-regulate by your way of thinking.

I don't buy the welfare state bit.


----------



## 007

tigerbob said:


> Someone doesn't share your views so they must be an illegal alien?  Hmmm...


I didn't come by that opinion by just one of her posts. I've been reading pages and pages of her pro illegal alien rhetoric for days, and took an educated guess she may very well likely be an illegal alien herself. Evidently I was right.



sky dancer said:


> It would be a lot easier to vet out the criminals if the borders were open.


How so? Seems like it work just the other way around to me.


----------



## sky dancer

I'm the evil illegal alien.  I'm gonna eat you up!


----------



## Vel

sky dancer said:


> I'm the evil illegal alien.  I'm gonna eat you up!




Before you do.. would you please let us know how the welfare systems would deal with all the new residents were you to open the borders? How many people can climb in the cart before the wheels fall off?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Vel6377 said:


> Before you do.. would you please let us know how the welfare systems would deal with all the new residents were you to open the borders? How many people can climb in the cart before the wheels fall off?



Dude, just because the borders are open doesn't mean visitors are not visitors... only bona fide _citizens_ are eligible for unemployment and welfare.  If a visitor can't feed himself and any minors he / she is responsible for he / she should go home.

Open borders are not insecure if every crossing is documented.

-Joe


----------



## editec

sky dancer said:


> I'm just waiting to see what happens with this topic. It's very difficult to get people out of their ruts when discussing immigration.
> 
> If all the people that are illegally in the US for jobs became legal overnight--the grouches would continue to grouse.
> 
> The issue is not really who is here legally and who is not.


 
That's partially true.

My objection to the massive illegal immigrantion is mostly economical.

Vastly increasing the labor market depresses the value of labor.

Throw in the fact that introducing vast numbers of people also strains the social services and infrastructure of our society, and there's two reasons to object to allowing this to continue.


----------



## Zoom-boing

sky dancer said:


> What I'd like to do in this thread is discuss the *idea* of open borders.  There is a book I'd like to read by Jason Riley, a writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page called _LET THEM IN_.
> Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders




You are so full of it.  Once again you dodge questions that you simply have no answers for.  Message received loud and clear.


----------



## Vel

AVG-JOE said:


> Dude, just because the borders are open doesn't mean visitors are not visitors... only bona fide _citizens_ are eligible for unemployment and welfare.  If a visitor can't feed himself and any minors he / she is responsible for he / she should go home.
> 
> Open borders are not insecure if every crossing is documented.
> 
> -Joe



Really? You should tell that to Obama's aunt. Seriously.. when all it takes to access government services is to give birth or even have a child in the school system, then open borders would break us,


----------



## AVG-JOE

Vel6377 said:


> Really? You should tell that to Obama's aunt. Seriously.. when all it takes to access government services is to give birth or even have a child in the school system, then open borders would break us,



Agreed.  That is why open borders need to come with visitor status for visitors and citizen status for citizens, and there needs to be a perk of some sort to being a citizen.  This is the only humane way to deal with all of the illegal aliens who have a life here in the states.

-Joe


----------



## Ravi

It might be worth trying, certainly what we do now doesn't seem to work.

It would still be a good idea to let people that want to become citizens become citizens because that is the only way you win their loyalty.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> I'm the evil illegal alien.  I'm gonna eat you up!


So you open a thread wanting to discuss open borders, and when asked to explain how opening them would magically make vetting out the criminals easier, and THIS is your ANSWER? C'mon sky, you're not helping your cause at all. 



AVG-JOE said:


> Dude, just because the borders are open doesn't mean visitors are not visitors... only bona fide _citizens_ are eligible for unemployment and welfare.  If a visitor can't feed himself and any minors he / she is responsible for he / she should go home.
> 
> Open borders are not insecure if every crossing is documented.
> 
> -Joe


Dude... you didn't watch this did you?

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n7WJeqxuOfQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n7WJeqxuOfQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]



Ravi said:


> It might be worth trying, certainly what we do now doesn't seem to work.
> 
> It would still be a good idea to let people that want to become citizens become citizens because that is the only way you win their loyalty.



Really. Just throwing open the borders to America is all of a sudden going to magically make everyone that comes here "loyal?" And just how does that work for these people, you know, the MILLIONS that want to TAKE OVER AMERICA?!

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n9pr0SlZHkY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n9pr0SlZHkY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]


----------



## Againsheila

AVG-JOE said:


> Dude, just because the borders are open doesn't mean visitors are not visitors... only bona fide _citizens_ are eligible for unemployment and welfare.  If a visitor can't feed himself and any minors he / she is responsible for he / she should go home.
> 
> Open borders are not insecure if every crossing is documented.
> 
> -Joe



That's not true at all.  Legal residents, if laid off, are intitled to unemployment.  Many legal immigrants come over here and have organizations to help them to live off the system.  These organizations are free to them and many of them get our tax dollars to function.  We have no such organizations to help Americans learn to work the system.

At one time they tried to take ssi away from people who weren't citizens and the outcry was enourmous.  The newspaper printed up a story of an old lady living in subsidized housing in Tacoma that had been living off the tax payer for decades.  She didn't speak a word of English.  She was not a citizen, but she was a legal resident (I don't know, maybe she was one of those granted amnesty).


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> It would be a lot easier to vet out the criminals if the borders were open.



How?


----------



## 007

Againsheila said:


> How?



Hope you have better luck asking that than I did Sheila...


----------



## Againsheila

editec said:


> That's partially true.
> 
> My objection to the massive illegal immigrantion is mostly economical.
> 
> Vastly increasing the labor market depresses the value of labor.
> 
> Throw in the fact that introducing vast numbers of people also strains the social services and infrastructure of our society, and there's two reasons to object to allowing this to continue.



For me, it's not just economical.  We have limited resources.  As I said before, a study I read that was published in 2006 said that at the current rate of population increase in our state we would run out of water by 2016.  I live in the Pacific Northwest.  Can you imagine running out of water in the wettest place in the states?

In the 70's, Americans were convinced to limit the number of children they have due to overpopulation and limited resources.  We complied.  Americans now have children at less than replacement value.  Less children means less workers, fewer workers means those there are, are in bigger demand, bigger demand means higher wages and a smaller income gap.  But instead, infettered immigration has taken away from our sacrifice and we are being punished.  Our wages are being lowered instead of raised, our jobs are being taken away from us, etc.  I picked berries as a kid.  It was the only way around here to make money if you were under sixteen.  When my sister in law came her from Thailand, her English was not good and she wanted a job, so I took her up to get the bus to go pick berries.  I was 18.  Here's an interesting twist, the bus driver took her AND all the asians at the busstop, but didn't take me.  The only caucasion there.  He'd not met me before or her, but he left me at the busstop.  My sister in law went that day and said "never again".

Illegals come in and take these jobs away from Americans and the farmers treat them like crap because they can, after all, they're illegal, what are they gonna do about it?

My friend has been a maid for decades.  She's been pushed out of two jobs by hispanics.  One gets hired, then another and eventually they take over and when the hours have to be cut, they cut the hours on the Americans and they can't make a living anymore.  Hispanics take care of there own, maybe it's time we started taking care of OUR own.

I have friends in the constuction industry.  When I was in highschool, it paid good money.  Now, 30 years later, they are making barely more than they did when they got out of highschoool.  Illegals are taking their jobs away from them.  Heck at one homesite, MS-13 was working on a house across the street and came over to talk to their boss, my friends lost their jobs.

I don't care that people like sky dancer see them as victims, the truth is they are victimizing americans and we are losing to them.

Even legal hispanics are losing their jobs as well as their id's to illegal immigrants.  This is WRONG!  The only way to fix this is to enforce our laws, and protect our borders.


----------



## Againsheila

Pale Rider said:


> Hope you have better luck asking that than I did Sheila...



I doubt she can answer it.  It doesn't seem logical to me.  How does allowing the free flow of people across our border make it easier to get rid of criminals?

That's like saying, if you don't filter your water, it will be easier to get rid of contaminents.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> We had a bracero program after World War II to take care of a shortage of farm workers. And when that program was in effect, illegal immigration from Mexico was reduced to a trickle.



Let me ask you, Wind.  Do we, at present, have a shortage of unskilled workers in the U.S.?


----------



## Ravi

Pale Rider said:


> Really. Just throwing open the borders to America is all of a sudden going to magically make everyone that comes here "loyal?" And just how does that work for these people, you know, the MILLIONS that want to TAKE OVER AMERICA?!


That's not what I said. I said let the ones that want to become Americans become Americans. And not only will this ensure their loyalty, it will also allow them to work and pay taxes...and right now we sure could use a big infusion of money.

At the very least decriminalize being undocumented. The reason companies can get away with paying substandard wages is because the people they hire know they can be turned over to the INS. If they can't be turned over to the INS they are free to report companies for paying illegal wages. If Tyson chicken can't make a profit by paying a fair salary, let them go offshore and try to sell to us...and then don't buy from them. I'm sick of coddling corporate America. Toyota and Honda have both proven you can make a profit and pay decent salaries right here in the USA.


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> That's not what I said. I said let the ones that want to become Americans become Americans. And not only will this ensure their loyalty, it will also allow them to work and pay taxes...and right now we sure could use a big infusion of money.
> 
> At the very least decriminalize being undocumented. The reason companies can get away with paying substandard wages is because the people they hire know they can be turned over to the INS. If they can't be turned over to the INS they are free to report companies for paying illegal wages. If Tyson chicken can't make a profit by paying a fair salary, let them go offshore and try to sell to us...and then don't buy from them. I'm sick of coddling corporate America. Toyota and Honda have both proven you can make a profit and pay decent salaries right here in the USA.



A big infusion of money from illegals ???  Surely you jest.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> That's not what I said. I said let the ones that want to become Americans become Americans. And not only will this ensure their loyalty, it will also allow them to work and pay taxes...and right now we sure could use a big infusion of money.



This is sloppy reasoning.  Our unemployment rate is currently on the rise.  What this means is that we have more people than jobs.  Adding more people to the equation will bring wages down (because wages rise and fall in proportion to the availability of qualified workers).  Falling wages = falling taxes.  Rising unemployment = an increase in government subsidies to the unemployed.  This will only INCREASE the economic woes we are currently suffering nationally.


----------



## catzmeow

dilloduck said:


> A big infusion of money from illegals ???  Surely you jest.



A big infusion of cash for MEXICO.  Definitely not a big infusion of cash for American workers, American companies, or the American government.


----------



## Ravi

dilloduck said:


> A big infusion of money from illegals ???  Surely you jest.


No, surely I don't. I know in your mind immigrants stay in dead end jobs forever, but it just isn't true.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Againsheila said:


> *I don't care that people like sky dancer see them as victims, the truth is they are victimizing americans and we are losing to them.*Even legal hispanics are losing their jobs as well as their id's to illegal immigrants.  This is WRONG!  The only way to fix this is to enforce our laws, and protect our borders.




  


Skyspinner -- if we did away with borders, hows that play out for terrorists coming in?


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> No, surely I don't. I know in your mind immigrants stay in dead end jobs forever, but it just isn't true.



I can't wait for them to get here with their burros laden with gold.


----------



## sky dancer

Ravi said:


> It might be worth trying, certainly what we do now doesn't seem to work.
> 
> It would still be a good idea to let people that want to become citizens become citizens because that is the only way you win their loyalty.



Exactly.  What we are doing now doesn't work.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Exactly.  What we are doing now doesn't work.



By all means.  Let's throw caution to the wind and madly seize an opportunity to fuck up in new and interesting ways.

You betcha.  (wink)


----------



## sky dancer

I like this writers viewpoint....more at link

"Immigration restrictions are based on the assumption that where you happen to be born is significant. If choice had been involved, then maybe differential treatment would be justified. However, it is the central tenet of responsibility that you are not responsible for that which you could not have made otherwise. Place of birth is affected by decisions made before you exist, something you cannot possibly be held responsible for. From my perspective, my birth place is simply a lottery, and as I am not responsible for it then it has no normative value and cannot be used to justify discrimination. We have accepted this with sex and skin colour, why not with birthplace? British citizens do not deserve their privileged (wealth-wise of course) place in British society any more than non-Brits."
No Borders, 20/02/08, Dissident Warwick


----------



## catzmeow

Instead of posting other people's thoughts, why not respond to the questions people have already asked you?


----------



## Againsheila

Originally Posted by sky dancer  
We had a bracero program after World War II to take care of a shortage of farm workers. And when that program was in effect, illegal immigration from Mexico was reduced to a trickle.

<<<

Then why, after WWII, did we have "operation wetback" to send all the illegals home?


----------



## Ravi

dilloduck said:


> I can't wait for them to get here with their burros laden with gold.


I guess I didn't make myself clear. Legally employed people pay income tax, social security tax, and medicare tax.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> I guess I didn't make myself clear. Legally employed people pay income tax, social security tax, and medicare tax.



And still ship their money OUT of this country, back to their homes.  Both legal and illegal immigrants send $billions of money out of our economy every year.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Originally Posted by sky dancer
> We had a bracero program after World War II to take care of a shortage of farm workers. And when that program was in effect, illegal immigration from Mexico was reduced to a trickle.
> 
> <<<
> 
> Then why, after WWII, did we have "operation wetback" to send all the illegals home?



Immigration policy continually changes and is historically racist.
Why don't you tell me why you think the policy changed.  Have you studied immigration policy since it's inception?


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Immigration policy continually changes and is historically racist.
> Why don't you tell me why you think the policy changed.  Have you studied immigrationi policy since it's inception?



In other words, you lied, got caught lying, and now want to blame me.

Yes, immigration policy is racist.  Today it is harder for a person from Europe to get here than someone from an Hispanic country.  That's why the majority of our legal immigrants are hispanic.  Teddy Kennedy changed the immigration laws in the 60's to encourage immigration from 3rd world nations and almost completely ban immigration from 1st world nations.


----------



## Shogun

Is it a real shocker than at illegal alien wants the US to change OUR immigration policy?  We AMERICANS are not obligated to you regardless of how many accusations of racism your broken engrish puts in your mouth.  America is not some disposable social bandage for you to use at your own discretion.  You do not have a right to be here.  Indeed, WE THE PEOPLE have the right to decide who gets to enter our property.  And, until we give you a green light you are nothing more than a burglar trying to rationalize theft.


----------



## Ravi

Againsheila said:


> And still ship their money OUT of this country, back to their homes.  Both legal and illegal immigrants send $billions of money out of our economy every year.


So what? They'll do that either way. But their kids won't. Because they'll be second generation and totally American. And they don't ship it all out, just a small portion.


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> So what? They'll do that either way. But their kids won't. Because they'll be second generation and totally American.



Are they gonna bring a burro laden with gold for each kid they have while they are here ?


----------



## sky dancer

Here is an article which fully documents racist and exclusionary US Immigration policy from its inception in 1790 to the present.
History of Migration and Immigration Laws in the United States


----------



## sky dancer

Sorry--

I didn't realize how long that article actually is.

Here is another:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/70xx/doc7051/02-28-Immigration.pdf


----------



## del

please cut your post down to a paragraph or two with the link
we respect copyright laws
thank you


----------



## Ravi

dilloduck said:


> Are they gonna bring a burro laden with gold for each kid they have while they are here ?


I've given up trying to figure out what you are trying to say here.


----------



## sky dancer

Shogun said:


> Is it a real shocker than at illegal alien wants the US to change OUR immigration policy?  We AMERICANS are not obligated to you regardless of how many accusations of racism your broken engrish puts in your mouth.  America is not some disposable social bandage for you to use at your own discretion. * You do not have a right to be here.*  Indeed, WE THE PEOPLE have the right to decide who gets to enter our property.  And, until we give you a green light you are nothing more than a burglar trying to rationalize theft.



Like it or not, I vote.  Do illegal immigrants or foreign nationals have voting rights in the US?


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> I've given up trying to figure out what you are trying to say here.



Good Idea. Might wanna just stop trying to convince me that illegal alliens represent some kind of "cash infusion" that the US desperately needs too.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> In other words, you lied, got caught lying, and now want to blame me.
> 
> Yes, immigration policy is racist.  Today it is harder for a person from Europe to get here than someone from an Hispanic country.  That's why the majority of our legal immigrants are hispanic.  Teddy Kennedy changed the immigration laws in the 60's to encourage immigration from 3rd world nations and almost completely ban immigration from 1st world nations.




I lied about being an illegal immigrant.  I thought it was funny that a poster accused me of not being a citizen so I teased him.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> So what? They'll do that either way. But their kids won't. Because they'll be second generation and totally American. And they don't ship it all out, just a small portion.



Hate to break it to you but all those kids we're giving American citizenship to just for being born here are also citizens of their own country and that's where the alliegence lies.  Didn't you see the mayday demonstrations?  the Mexican flags?  The kids at the highschool that pulled down the American flag and put up the Mexican flag?

Do you know anything at all about "Aztlan"?  Have you heard of La Mecha?


I have a hard time believing that an amendment to our constitutions which specifically denies citizenship to children born here to legal diplomats was ever intended to grant citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens.  I think it's past time this went to the supreme court.  Unfortunately, I think it's already  too late.


----------



## Ravi

sky dancer said:


> I lied about being an illegal immigrant.  I thought it was funny that a poster accused me of not being a citizen so I teased him.


You don't look illegal anyway.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> You don't look illegal anyway.



That's not what she lied about, and how would you know anyway?


----------



## Ravi

Againsheila said:


> Hate to break it to you but all those kids we're giving American citizenship to just for being born here are also citizens of their own country and that's where the alliegence lies.  Didn't you see the mayday demonstrations?  the Mexican flags?  The kids at the highschool that pulled down the American flag and put up the Mexican flag?
> 
> Do you know anything at all about "Aztlan"?  Have you heard of La Mecha?
> 
> 
> I have a hard time believing that an amendment to our constitutions which specifically denies citizenship to children born here to legal diplomats was ever intended to grant citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens.  I think it's past time this went to the supreme court.  Unfortunately, I think it's already  too late.


Yep, a handful of trouble makers. Most people that come here actually do come here for a better life. And the majority of the second and third generation and beyond are loyal Americans. It has worked that way since the country started and unless you think Mexicans aren't real people, it will work that way with them.


----------



## sky dancer

Ravi said:


> You don't look illegal anyway.


Really?

Free thinking is still legal in the US.


----------



## Shogun

sky dancer said:


> Like it or not, I vote.  Do illegal immigrants or foreign nationals have voting rights in the US?



Good for you.  so do I.  And, I guess your question is answered according to how authentic the fake social security looks to the election official.


----------



## sky dancer

Here is an outstanding article:
The Future of Immigration and the US National Interest The final chapter lays out three scenarios for the future of US immigration policy. In the absence of a coherent new consensus, policymakers will muddle through with more of the same policies pursued during the 1990s and first years of this century: a combination of border enforcement, episodic workplace raids, and continued growth in informal and temporary labor- and family-based flows. Visa rules already fail to meet demand, and global economics and US demographics guarantee continued growth in future visa demand. The result, increasingly, will be a multi-tiered society in which undocumented immigrants and temporary workers occupy distinctly lower positions in the economic system, with significant ripple effects for US workers in related industries, and likely worsening social and cultural cleavages. Avoiding this worst-case scenario will require Americans to have an honest and far-reaching conversation about immigration, globalization, and America&#8217;s future. Ultimately, either immigration policy must be situated within a broader economic, security, and cultural context emphasizing regional and global integration, or broader US foreign and domestic economic policies must be adjusted to match unilateralism in managing migration. These are both viable options&#8212;globalization is no more inevitable today than it was during the great wave of immigration preceding World War One&#8212;and I lay out justifications and concrete policy proposals for each alternative. The chapter concludes with an argument in favor of a layered, regional approach to managing migration, and identifies the most important opportunities and obstacles to implementing these reforms.
America's Great Debate and the History of U.S. Immigration Policy

Warning--not for those who prefer sound bites.  This is a research paper and is 37 pages long.


----------



## sky dancer

Shogun said:


> Good for you.  so do I.  And, I guess your question is answered according to how authentic the fake social security looks to the election official.




Thank you.  That cracked me up this morning.  Touche'


----------



## Ravi

Againsheila said:


> That's not what she lied about, and how would you know anyway?


It was a joke. You can't tell someone's immigration status by looking at them.


----------



## Againsheila

Shogun said:


> Good for you.  so do I.  And, I guess your question is answered according to how authentic the fake social security looks to the election official.



All they have to provide is a driver's license and illegal aliens are given driver's licenses in our state.  On Cnn they interviewed and illegal alien that said "We vote too."  Anyone who thinks none of them are voting is naive.


----------



## sky dancer

Ravi said:


> It was a joke. You can't tell someone's immigration status by looking at them.


Sure you can.  Sheila thinks they all have brown skin and spanish accents.  Don't you know?  Only white people are legal.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Sure you can.  Sheila thinks they all have brown skin and spanish accents.



Nice try, but, no.

Illegals come in all races and ethnicities, just like Americans.

There are a large number of Illegal Irish here too, not nearly as many as hispanics, but still a big number.  I'm of Irish decent and I want the illegals from Ireland gone every bit as much as I want the illegals from Mexico gone.

BTW, care to answer the question yet about how having open borders is going to make it easier to "vet" criminals?


----------



## Shogun

Againsheila said:


> All they have to provide is a driver's license and illegal aliens are given driver's licenses in our state.  On Cnn they interviewed and illegal alien that said "We vote too."  Anyone who thinks none of them are voting is naive.



I'm quite aware of how easy it is to fake a social security card.  The ironic piece of this puzzle is that before I can call the gov to verify the authenticity of a SS number I have to actually hire the person, thereby breaking the law, first.  I am against drivers licenses for illegals since it's pretty much like letting a pedophile act as a schoolyard monitor and only enables this illegal behaviour.  Not to mention that a lot of illegals can't speak engrish letalone read our fucking road signs.  And, since they are too busy sending (actual worthwhile) money back to  the homeland instead of paying for insurance.. 

again, illegal aliens do not have a right to be here in the US outside of our American prerogative.


----------



## Ravi

Well kids, why don't your states identify by colored background on the driver's license who is or is not a citizen?

doh!


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> Well kids, why don't your states identify by colored background on the driver's license who is or is not a citizen?
> 
> doh!



Makes sense to me.  However, I see no reason why illegal aliens should be given driver's license in the first place.  They are here, illegally.  If they are caught driving without a license, DEPORT them.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Nice try, but, no.
> 
> Illegals come in all races and ethnicities, just like Americans.
> 
> There are a large number of Illegal Irish here too, not nearly as many as hispanics, but still a big number.  I'm of Irish decent and I want the illegals from Ireland gone every bit as much as I want the illegals from Mexico gone.
> 
> BTW, care to answer the question yet about how having open borders is going to make it easier to "vet" criminals?



Nice try?  Go back and read your own posts.  You think that current immigration policy is racist toward white europeans.  

I read an article, sheila that gave details on how to vet criminals with an open border policy.  I haven't found it yet.

It takes considerable time to research these articles.  Too bad nobody bothers to read the articles.

So, frankly, your demands on me matter little.  When people start reading the articles I do provide I will work a bit harder.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Nice try?  Go back and read your own posts.  You think that current immigration policy is racist toward white europeans.
> 
> I read an article, sheila that gave details on how to vet criminals with an open border policy.  I haven't found it yet.
> 
> It takes considerable time to research these articles.  Too bad nobody bothers to read the articles.
> 
> So, frankly, your demands on me matter little.  When people start reading the articles I do provide I will work a bit harder.



I said our immigration policy disciminates against people coming from 1st world countries.  That started with Ted Kennedy's bill passed in the 60's which made it easier for someone from 3rd world nations to come here while making it almost impossible for someone from Europe to come here.

You are the one that made the claim that allowing free movement across our borders would make it easier to vet criminals.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to back up your statement.  The truth is it's not logical.  Like I said, it's like saying if you don't filter your water, you'll find more contaminents.  Forget looking it up.  Just think about it and tell me why my analogy doesn't fit, okay?

I'm beginning to think you have no opinion of your own, you're just spouting off what you read without really understanding it.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> I said our immigration policy disciminates against people coming from 1st world countries.  That started with Ted Kennedy's bill passed in the 60's which made it easier for someone from 3rd world nations to come here while making it almost impossible for someone from Europe to come here.




Immigration policy continually changes and is historically racist.

I'm trying to remember the series of articles I read about how open borders would help us to vet out the criminal element.

The reasoning went something like this.  If all are free to come and go across the border with appropriate ID through check points then there is no need for anyone to be hiding but the criminals.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> I said our immigration policy disciminates against people coming from 1st world countries.  That started with Ted Kennedy's bill passed in the 60's which made it easier for someone from 3rd world nations to come here while making it almost impossible for someone from Europe to come here.
> 
> You are the one that made the claim that allowing free movement across our borders would make it easier to vet criminals.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to back up your statement.  The truth is it's not logical.  Like I said, it's like saying if you don't filter your water, you'll find more contaminents.  Forget looking it up.  Just think about it and tell me why my analogy doesn't fit, okay?
> 
> *I'm beginning to think you have no opinion of your own*, you're just spouting off what you read without really understanding it.




Actually, that statement of yours that I highlighted is pretty close to the truth.  I don't have strong opinions about immigration.  I'm interested in the topic, and I am studying it from various points of view.  That's why, to me, it is not a problem to discuss the topic of open borders.  I'm not trying to win.  I'm just interested in examining it from many different points of view.

I am a human rights activist.  I always lean toward defending the underdog.

As I go about this process of reading and discussing I encounter people like yourself with strong and inflexible opinions about immigration.  So here we are, you and I.

What seems to annoy people who are all worked up about immigration is when they talk about the topic with someone who doesn't have strongly averse feelings about immigration.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Immigration policy continually changes and is historically racist.
> 
> I'm trying to remember the series of articles I read about how open borders would help us to vet out the criminal element.
> 
> The reasoning went something like this.  If all are free to come and go across the border with appropriate ID through check points then there is no need for anyone to be hiding but the criminals.



Your OP never mentioned "check points or Id", however; that would only work if the IDs couldn't be forged, and if everyone that crossed the border was checked, but that wouldn't be open borders, now, would it?


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Actually, that statement of yours that I highlighted is pretty close to the truth.  I don't have strong opinions about immigration.  I'm interested in the topic, and I am studying it from various points of view.  That's why, to me, it is not a problem to discuss the topic of open borders.  I'm not trying to win.  I'm just interested in examining it from many different points of view.
> 
> I am a human rights activist.  I always lean toward defending the underdog.
> 
> As I go about this process of reading and discussing I encounter people like yourself with strong and inflexible opinions about immigration.  So here we are, you and I.
> 
> What seems to annoy people who are all worked up about immigration is when they talk about the topic with someone who doesn't have strongly averse feelings about immigration.



No, what annoys us is people who don't know anything about the subject reciting what they've read without actually having any understanding.  Try reading some anti illegal information now and compare them.

I enjoy a good debate, but you can't debate properly if you're just reciting quotes from articles and you don't have any understanding of the whole picture.

You haven't once made a comment about our limited resources and how we are going to deal with all these extra people you want to let into our country.  You haven't spoken about the effect it will have on our economy our job market, our wages.  You haven't mentioned the number of hospitals that have closed down along the border due to too many illegal aliens that used the hosptials and never, ever paid their bills.

You don't want to debate the subject, you just want to spout your articles .


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Your OP never mentioned "check points or Id", however; that would only work if the IDs couldn't be forged, and if everyone that crossed the border was checked, but that wouldn't be open borders, now, would it?



Actually the borders would still be open even with check points.  They would be open for foreign nationals and citizens alike to travel freely.  Some form of ID would be necessary.  We would still have borders.   We would still expect anyone in the US to abide by our laws.

If everyone is legal--free to come and go--live and work--only those who are criminal would be trying to sneak in.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Actually the borders would still be open even with check points.  They would be open for foreign nationals and citizens alike to travel freely.  Some form of ID would be necessary.  We would still have borders.   We would still expect anyone in the US to abide by our laws.
> 
> If everyone is legal--free to come and go--live and work--only those who are criminal would be trying to sneak in.



Now this is a discussion.  I have 3 problems with this.  1) who is going to pay for all the people that will be needed to check these id's and make sure they aren't forged, and
2)  are we going to get to travel to their country unfettered too?  How are you going to make sure that happens?

3) what about our limited resources?  How do we deal with that.

Besides look at what's happening now.  Our economy is tanking and the illegals are leaving our country voluntarily.  They are going home.  We are stuck cleaning up the mess, they don't let us go to their country.  Heck even their own citizens are complaining about them coming home.  Now they are losing their jobs and their wages are going down.  The same two things they swore that the illegals here didn't do, they are now claiming they are doing in their own country.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> No, what annoys us is people who don't know anything about the subject reciting what they've read without actually having any understanding.  Try reading some anti illegal information now and compare them.
> 
> I enjoy a good debate, but you can't debate properly if you're just reciting quotes from articles and you don't have any understanding of the whole picture.
> 
> You haven't once made a comment about our limited resources and how we are going to deal with all these extra people you want to let into our country.  You haven't spoken about the effect it will have on our economy our job market, our wages.  You haven't mentioned the number of hospitals that have closed down along the border due to too many illegal aliens that used the hosptials and never, ever paid their bills.
> 
> You don't want to debate the subject, you just want to spout your articles .




sheila--

If you don't want to talk with me about immigration, I am not holding a gun to your head and forcing you.

I post the articles--because I read them and because I think others may be interested in reading them too.  I don't have unlimited time on my hands to be writing essays all day long on the topic of immigration.  When I find a well written or provocative article that looks at the problem from another viewpoint I post it.

It is your choice whether to read my posts or the articles I provide with them or not.

I do agree with you about the problem of our hospitals closing.  However, that is a larger conversation we ought to be having about insurance and health care in our country.

Be honest, the reason hospitals are closing has to do with the problem of the poor and uninsured overwhelming the ER and with a lack of acute care and preventative health care.  The problem does not rest solely on the backs of immigrants.  Hospitals and medicine in the US are big business.  Hospitals close relative to business decisions that hospitals make as well.

Health insurance and health care in the US is a topic I feel strongly about.  Something is wrong when American citizens have to get their drugs from Canada in order to afford them and go to Asia or Mexico for surgery and American hospitals are closing in large numbers.


----------



## Ravi

This thread is starting to make me laugh.


----------



## catzmeow

Againsheila said:


> You haven't once made a comment about our limited resources and how we are going to deal with all these extra people you want to let into our country.  You haven't spoken about the effect it will have on our economy our job market, our wages.  You haven't mentioned the number of hospitals that have closed down along the border due to too many illegal aliens that used the hosptials and never, ever paid their bills.
> 
> You don't want to debate the subject, you just want to spout your articles .



Nor has she addressed the fact that our economic picture right now is considerably different from the scenario raised in the OP, that of the U.S. importing labor during a time when we were having a shortage of farm workers...


----------



## Ravi

There still are shortages of farm workers. Now we will see if out of work Americans want to do these jobs, hmmm?

Who will pick the crops? North Olympic Peninsula farmers lament lack of migrant workers


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> sheila--
> 
> If you don't want to talk with me about immigration, I am not holding a gun to your head and forcing you.
> 
> I post the articles--because I read them and because I think others may be interested in reading them too.  I don't have unlimited time on my hands to be writing essays all day long on the topic of immigration.  When I find a well written or provocative article that looks at the problem from another viewpoint I post it.
> 
> It is your choice whether to read my posts or the articles I provide with them or not.
> 
> I do agree with you about the problem of our hospitals closing.  However, that is a larger conversation we ought to be having about insurance and health care in our country.
> 
> *Be honest, the reason hospitals are closing has to do with the problem of the poor and uninsured overwhelming the ER and with a lack of acute care and preventative health care.*  The problem does not rest solely on the backs of immigrants.  Hospitals and medicine in the US are big business.  Hospitals close relative to business decisions that hospitals make as well.
> 
> Health insurance and health care in the US is a topic I feel strongly about.  Something is wrong when American citizens have to get their drugs from Canada in order to afford them and go to Asia or Mexico for surgery and American hospitals are closing in large numbers.



And yet, it's the hospitals along the southern border that are closing.


----------



## 007

Ravi said:


> That's not what I said. I said let the ones that want to become Americans become Americans. And not only will this ensure their loyalty, it will also allow them to work and pay taxes...and right now we sure could use a big infusion of money.


I have no idea just how you get the idea that throwing our laws to the wind and letting just any sick, uneducated, unskilled, gang banger, criminal, etc., that does NOT want to become an American, is somehow going to magically become LOYAL to America just because we make them legal. To them that just gives them the leverage they want and need to conduct their criminal, terrorist business without worrying about being arrested or deported. Bad idea Rav.



Ravi said:


> At the very least decriminalize being undocumented. The reason companies can get away with paying substandard wages is because the people they hire know they can be turned over to the INS. If they can't be turned over to the INS they are free to report companies for paying illegal wages. If Tyson chicken can't make a profit by paying a fair salary, let them go offshore and try to sell to us...and then don't buy from them. I'm sick of coddling corporate America. Toyota and Honda have both proven you can make a profit and pay decent salaries right here in the USA.


Undocumented is just an inaccurate term used for an illegal, and on top of that, the tidal wave of illegal aliens into this country in the last two decades has COST us more than it ever BENEFITED us. We don't NEED twenty million illegal aliens. We don't need MORE illegal aliens. We don't need MORE PEOPLE PERIOD! In all actuality, America would be better off getting RID of some it's sick, uneducated, unskilled, criminal people.

This whole thread, this whole debate, is led by two different camps. One camp realizes that America is being invaded by the largest land invasion from one country into another in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD, and it needs to STOP. The other opposing camp wants the invasion to continue. They even want to TAKE AMERICA BACK! And if you think we don't know that you're crazy. Sure there are those that don't, but the number of those that do number in the MILLIONS, and that's a big enough problem that we, the LEGAL citizens of America, should fight this invasion with every fabric of our soul and being, and I can guarantee you this, I WILL!


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> There still are shortages of farm workers. Now we will see if out of work Americans want to do these jobs, hmmm?
> 
> Who will pick the crops? North Olympic Peninsula farmers lament lack of migrant workers



Once upon a time, Americans picked those crops.  Then they stopped allowing Americans to pick them because they could take advantage of the illegals.  Now they want the Americans back, but they don't want to pay them or treat them well.  What do you expect is gonna happen?

I remember taking my Thai sister in law to the busstop to get picked up to pick berries.  Something I did as a kid to make money.  Back then all the pickers were caucasion.  I hadn't been in years but my sister in law wanted to make some money so I took her up to the busstop.  The bus driver, who didn't know either of us, took her and all the asians.  I was the only caucasion at the busstop and he refused to take me.  Now explain to me why I should care now that they can't find people to pick their crops?


----------



## Againsheila

Okay, Sky Dancer, here's an article you should read and then comment on....go to the link, this is only the first paragraph of a fairly long article

Mexico&#146;s Undiplomatic Diplomats by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal Autumn 2005

Mexicos Undiplomatic Diplomats
Heather Mac Donald EMAIL 
RESPOND 
PRINT 



Its a strain being a Mexican diplomat in the United States these days, as the plaintive expression on Mario Velázquez-Suárezs dignified features suggests. Diplomacy may be the art of lying for ones country, but Mexican diplomacy requires taking that art to virtuosic heights. Sitting in his expansive office in Mexicos Los Angeles consulate, Deputy Consul General Velázquez-Suárez gamely insists that he and his peers observe the diplomatic duty not to interfere in Americas internal affairs, including immigration matters. Immigration is an internal discussion, he says. We have to respect that regardless of whether it pleases us.


----------



## Ravi

You know, maybe George Bush's intent was to destroy the economy so all the undocumented people would go home.



Less people spending money here doesn't seem like a good thing. And if no one steps in and does the jobs left vacant, the businesses are going to go under as well.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Okay, Sky Dancer, here's an article you should read and then comment on....go to the link, this is only the first paragraph of a fairly long article
> 
> Mexico&#8217;s Undiplomatic Diplomats by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal Autumn 2005
> 
> Mexico&#8217;s Undiplomatic Diplomats
> Heather Mac Donald EMAIL
> RESPOND
> PRINT
> 
> 
> 
> It&#8217;s a strain being a Mexican diplomat in the United States these days, as the plaintive expression on Mario Velázquez-Suárez&#8217;s dignified features suggests. Diplomacy may be the art of lying for one&#8217;s country, but Mexican diplomacy requires taking that art to virtuosic heights. Sitting in his expansive office in Mexico&#8217;s Los Angeles consulate, Deputy Consul General Velázquez-Suárez gamely insists that he and his peers observe the diplomatic duty not to interfere in America&#8217;s internal affairs, including immigration matters. &#8220;Immigration is an internal discussion,&#8221; he says. &#8220;We have to respect that regardless of whether it pleases us.&#8221;



When you're willing to read my long articles and comment on them I will read yours.  Your article is an opinion piece which claims that the comic book the Mexican government publishes encourages illegal immigration.

That's the same kind of logic that people who oppose sex education in the schools use.  That if you teach about condoms you are promoting sexual activity.

The comic book educates Mexicans on the dangers of crossing the border illegally and how to keep from dying in doing so.

I provided research papers today.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> You know, maybe George Bush's intent was to destroy the economy so all the undocumented people would go home.
> 
> 
> 
> Less people spending money here doesn't seem like a good thing. And if no one steps in and does the jobs left vacant, the businesses are going to go under as well.



Actually, the illegals are part of the reason for the destroyed economy.  They have lowered the wages for the working class.  This means less money into our economy.  Plus they are sending their money home which means even less money in our economy.  Making them legal will not fix this problem in that every amnesty in the past has only led to an increase in illegal immigration.


----------



## Ravi

Againsheila said:


> Actually, the illegals are part of the reason for the destroyed economy.  They have lowered the wages for the working class.  This means less money into our economy.  Plus they are sending their money home which means even less money in our economy.  Making them legal will not fix this problem in that every amnesty in the past has only led to an increase in illegal immigration.


I don't agree with you but it seems pretty easy to fix that if true. Decriminalize being undocumented. Then employers won't be able to pay lower wages because they will no longer be able to hold deportation over the heads of their employees.

It isn't the people that take the jobs that lower the wages. It is the people that hire them to avoid paying a living wage. They only send a fraction of what they earn home, btw. The rest is spent here. And now, it won't be.


----------



## sky dancer

Ravi said:


> I don't agree with you but it seems pretty easy to fix that if true. Decriminalize being undocumented. Then employers won't be able to pay lower wages because they will no longer be able to hold deportation over the heads of their employees.
> 
> It isn't the people that take the jobs that lower the wages. It is the people that hire them to avoid paying a living wage. They only send a fraction of what they earn home, btw. The rest is spent here. And now, it won't be.




Bingo.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Bingo.



Bullshit----deprive employers of illegal workers til they go belly up.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Less people spending money here doesn't seem like a good thing. And if no one steps in and does the jobs left vacant, the businesses are going to go under as well.



Is it your idea that illegal immigrants come here like tourists to support our local economies?  

Do you even KNOW any illegal immigrants?


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> There still are shortages of farm workers. Now we will see if out of work Americans want to do these jobs, hmmm?



Did it ever occur to you that Americans USED to do these jobs until an influx of illegal employees lowered the wages to the point that most Americans can't afford to take these jobs?

More employees in the pool = lower wages for workers.  durr.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Is it your idea that illegal immigrants come here like tourists to support our local economies?
> 
> Do you even KNOW any illegal immigrants?


A few. But I never ask people their immigration status, so for all I know most of the people I know are not citizens.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Did it ever occur to you that Americans USED to do these jobs until an influx of illegal employees lowered the wages to the point that most Americans can't afford to take these jobs?
> 
> More employees in the pool = lower wages for workers.  durr.


No, I didn't know that. I thought migrant workers have been with us since the beginning of time.


----------



## 007

Ravi said:


> I don't agree with you but it seems pretty easy to fix that if true. Decriminalize being undocumented. Then employers won't be able to pay lower wages because they will no longer be able to hold deportation over the heads of their employees.
> 
> It isn't the people that take the jobs that lower the wages. It is the people that hire them to avoid paying a living wage. They only send a fraction of what they earn home, btw. The rest is spent here. And now, it won't be.



Not exactly Rav. You are right that employers are benefiting from illegal aliens by hiring them at depressed wages, but that's not the end of the story as far as what happens to the money the illegals are paid. There's a plethora of information on the subject searching google, but this article pretty much sums it up...



*ILLEGAL ALIENS DAMAGE - DRAIN AMERICAS ECONOMY*


by Michael Cutler
February 12, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Nearly three months ago I wrote about the movement of cash out of the United States through remittances and other methods by illegal aliens who came to the United States with the single-minded focus of securing illegal employment to send money home to assist their family members. The amounts of money that are consequently drained from our economy are huge and do not include the other costs our nation incurs because of the 20 million illegal aliens who are estimated to be residing and working in our country illegally. 

Article continues here...


And here's more containing facts....


*INVASION USA*


*$2.2 trillion illegal alien taxpayer sticker shock
2/3 of immigrants cost Americans
$22,449 a year, shows new study
Posted: April 11, 2007
1:00 am Eastern*

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON &#8211; Someone has finally fixed an approximate taxpayer cost of between 12 million and 15 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S.

A new study by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.

Over the course of the household's lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million.

If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion.

"Would any of us buy shares in a company that we knew would produce a loss of a million dollars a share," asks Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in response to the study. "Cheap labor is not cheap at the cost of over a million dollars per head of household."

Rector's study, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer," examines the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. Using numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Standards and other government agencies, Rector determined what they earn, what they spend and what they receive in government services

About half of the 17.7 million households studied are illegal aliens. About two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category.

"Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion," Rector writes. "This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services." 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55135


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> No, I didn't know that. I thought migrant workers have been with us since the beginning of time.



Actually, no.  Back in the olden days, and they weren't that long ago, crops were picked by legal citizens.  Illegal immigrants were used by the corporate farms to break the strikes of Cesar Chavez, for instance, from the United Farm Workers, when members of the UFW refused to pick pesticide-tainted grapes.

Here is some information on UFW versus illegal immigration:



> The UFW during Chávez's tenure was committed to restricting immigration. César Chávez and Dolores Huerta fought the Bracero Program that existed from 1942 to 1964. *Their opposition stemmed from their belief that the program undermined U.S. workers and exploited the migrant workers*. Their efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964. *In 1973, the UFW was one of the first labor unions to oppose proposed employer sanctions that would have prohibited hiring illegal immigrants*.
> 
> On a few occasions, concerns that illegal migrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events, which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which have also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. *In 1969, Chávez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers*. Joining him on the march were both Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale.[5] *In its early years, Chávez and the UFW went so far as to report illegal aliens who served as strikebreaking replacement workers*, as well as those who refused to unionize, to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[6][7][8][9][10]
> 
> *In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a "wet line" along the United States-Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW's unionization efforts*.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> A few. But I never ask people their immigration status, so for all I know most of the people I know are not citizens.



I think that you'd be surprised who is, and isn't, a citizen, and the strong feelings on both sides.  Chicanos are often VERY offended at the idea of illegal immigration.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> I don't agree with you but it seems pretty easy to fix that if true. Decriminalize being undocumented. Then employers won't be able to pay lower wages because they will no longer be able to hold deportation over the heads of their employees.
> 
> It isn't the people that take the jobs that lower the wages. It is the people that hire them to avoid paying a living wage. They only send a fraction of what they earn home, btw. The rest is spent here. And now, it won't be.



I think you missed part of my post.  Granting them amnesty won't work.  It has never worked in the past.  Everytime we have granted amnesty, or even talked about it, there has been in increase in the number of illegals coming into this country.  Those illegals then take the jobs that the now legal immigrants used to have.  We then have even more people on the bottom rung of the ladder compeating for jobs which leads to lower and lower wages.

The only thing that will work is stopping any amnesty programs.  Deport illegals, jail them if they are caught here again and ban them from ever coming in legally.  When you reward bad behavior (illegal immigration with amnesty), you end up with more bad behavior.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> No, I didn't know that. I thought migrant workers have been with us since the beginning of time.



I used to work in the fields.  I used to be a maid.  I used to work in a nursing home.  These people aren't taking jobs Americans won't do, they are taking jobs away from Americans.

BTW, many Americans used to be migrant workers.


----------



## Ravi

Since the country started, farm owners have been hiring immigrants...this is nothing new. And hispanics aren't the first group of immigrants that earned the scorn of the white Americans.

All have pretty much integrated into our culture, settled down, and produced American families...even though each group in it's turn was accused of taking jobs away from Americans. The language never changes, just the country of origin.

It's always easy to blame economic problems on a group of people that are different.


----------



## 007

Ravi said:


> Since the country started, farm owners have been hiring immigrants...this is nothing new. And hispanics aren't the first group of immigrants that earned the scorn of the white Americans.
> 
> All have pretty much integrated into our culture, settled down, and produced American families...even though each group in it's turn was accused of taking jobs away from Americans. The language never changes, just the country of origin.
> 
> It's always easy to blame economic problems on a group of people that are different.



It's not a blame game Rav, it's fact. Didn't you read my reply up a couple posts?

Things change. What may have worked two hundred years ago, a hundred years ago, twenty years ago may be disastrous today. Not to mention that the number of illegal aliens in this country used to be next to nothing compared to today.


----------



## sky dancer

From the living room of the battered trailer she and her mother call home, Mancha described what happened when she came out of the shower that morning. "My mother went out, and I was alone," she said. "I was getting ready for school, getting dressed, when I heard this noise. I thought it was my mother coming back." She went on in the Tex-Mex Spanish-inflected Georgia accent now heard throughout Dixie: "Some people were slamming car doors outside the trailer. I heard footsteps and then a loud boom and then somebody screaming, asking if we were 'illegals,' 'Mexicans.' These big men were standing in my living room holding guns. One man blocked my doorway. Another guy grabbed a gun on his side. I freaked out. 'Oh, my God!' I yelled."

As more than twenty Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents surrounded the trailer, said Mancha, agents inside interrogated her.  After about five minutes of interrogation, the agents -- who, according to the women's lawyer, Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center, showed no warrants and had neither probable cause nor consent to enter the home -- simply left. They left in all likelihood because Mancha and her mother didn't fit the profile of the workers at the nearby Crider poultry plant, who had been targeted by the raid in nearby Stilwell. They were the wrong kind of "Mexicans"; they were US citizens."

This is a clip from a five page article:

Juan Crow: The Deep South's New Second-Class Citizens | Immigration | AlterNet


----------



## Ravi

Pale Rider said:


> It's not a blame game Rav, it's fact. Didn't you read my reply up a couple posts?
> 
> Things change. What may have worked two hundred years ago, a hundred years ago, twenty years ago may be disastrous today. Not to mention that the number of illegal aliens in this country used to be next to nothing compared to today.


I gave up reading WorldNetDaily for lent once and never went back. Credible sources I'll be happy to look at.


----------



## sky dancer

What about transnationalism and flexible citizenship?


----------



## 007

Ravi said:


> I gave up reading WorldNetDaily for lent once and never went back. Credible sources I'll be happy to look at.



Oh... right... it has facts and things contrary to what you want to believe... sorry about that.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> From the living room of the battered trailer she and her mother call home, Mancha described what happened when she came out of the shower that morning. "My mother went out, and I was alone," she said. "I was getting ready for school, getting dressed, when I heard this noise. I thought it was my mother coming back." She went on in the Tex-Mex Spanish-inflected Georgia accent now heard throughout Dixie: "Some people were slamming car doors outside the trailer. I heard footsteps and then a loud boom and then somebody screaming, asking if we were 'illegals,' 'Mexicans.' These big men were standing in my living room holding guns. One man blocked my doorway. Another guy grabbed a gun on his side. I freaked out. 'Oh, my God!' I yelled."
> 
> As more than twenty Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents surrounded the trailer, said Mancha, agents inside interrogated her.  After about five minutes of interrogation, the agents -- who, according to the women's lawyer, Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center, showed no warrants and had neither probable cause nor consent to enter the home -- simply left. They left in all likelihood because Mancha and her mother didn't fit the profile of the workers at the nearby Crider poultry plant, who had been targeted by the raid in nearby Stilwell. They were the wrong kind of "Mexicans"; they were US citizens."
> 
> This is a clip from a five page article:
> 
> Juan Crow: The Deep South's New Second-Class Citizens | Immigration | AlterNet



OK, so it's a typical bust of illegal aliens. What's your point?

You have a problem with upholding our laws?


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> Oh... right... it has facts and things contrary to what you want to believe... sorry about that.



worldnetdaily has a serious right wing fundamentalist slant to its so-called 'facts'.


----------



## Gunny

sky dancer said:


> Whatever you say, Gunny.
> 
> 
> Make all the illegals legal and you don't have an illegal immigration problem.  You make the best argument for Open Borders.  It sounds to me that immigration would self-regulate by your way of thinking.
> 
> I don't buy the welfare state bit.



Your comment is completely illogical.  

You aren't buying what you don't want to hear, simple as that.  Open borders would devastate our economy and our social infrustructure.  The illegals already here are proving that already.

What part of those facts aren't you getting?


----------



## sky dancer

Pale Rider said:


> OK, so it's a typical bust of illegal aliens. What's your point?
> 
> You have a problem with upholding our laws?



They tried to bust a US citizen.  Get it?


----------



## Gunny

sky dancer said:


> I'm the evil illegal alien.  I'm gonna eat you up!




How about "I'm the illegal alien and I work for half price so I just got your wages suppressed, and or took your job?"

Wake up, huh?  Obviously you live a sheltered life and anything outside of it is of no consequence to you.


----------



## sky dancer

Gunny said:


> Your comment is completely illogical.
> 
> You aren't buying what you don't want to hear, simple as that.  Open borders would devastate our economy and our social infrustructure.  The illegals already here are proving that already.
> 
> What part of those facts aren't you getting?



Open borders is an _idea_ that I'm interested in discussing.   We do discuss political _ideas_ here don't we?

Transnationalism is the wave of the future.

Current immigration policy is based on a historical racist and colonial relationship to third world countries.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Open borders is an _idea_ that I'm interested in discussing.   We do discuss political _ideas_ here don't we?
> 
> Transnationalism is the wave of the future.
> 
> Current immigration policy is based on a historical racist and colonial relationship to third world countries.



Did you expect it to be initiated without resistance ?


----------



## Gunny

Pale Rider said:


> It's not a blame game Rav, it's fact. Didn't you read my reply up a couple posts?
> 
> Things change. What may have worked two hundred years ago, a hundred years ago, twenty years ago may be disastrous today. Not to mention that the number of illegal aliens in this country used to be next to nothing compared to today.



Oh no ... not the "Great Melting Pot," "give us your tired, your poor, ..." argument again.  That was fine when we lived in a sparsely populated nation.  We can't even sustain ourselves anymore and the do-gooders are cracking me up.  Our economy's in shambles and they STILL want to let illegals come in here and overburden it some more.

Like I always say about wannabe-intellectual, leftwingnuts ... they make relative arguments to the point of not even defending one's self.  Yeah, screw us and our economy and our way of life.  Let's feel sorry for the poor illegals who have helped drag it down to where it is.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> Did you expect it to be initiated without resistance ?


Of course not.  I probably won't see it in my lifetime.  It's just the direction the world is going.

Consequently, it makes sense to talk about it.  We have already moved toward allowing free trade of goods and services.  The free movement of people is next.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Of course not.  I probably won't see it in my lifetime.  It's just the direction the world is going.
> 
> Consequently, it makes sense to talk about it.  We have already moved toward allowing free trade of goods and services.  The free movement of people is next.



according to who ?


----------



## Gunny

sky dancer said:


> Open borders is an _idea_ that I'm interested in discussing.   We do discuss political _ideas_ here don't we?
> 
> Transnationalism is the wave of the future.
> 
> Current immigration policy is based on a historical racist and colonial relationship to third world countries.



Discussing an idea and dismissing whatever you don't want to hear are two completely different things.

Our current immigration policy is based on how many people you can cram in X amount of space and how many jobs there are for X amount of people.

Red herring alert.  Nothing racist about it.  An illegal alien is an illegal alien regardless race or nationality.

Transnationalism is self-destructive, and will lead to nothing but dragging us down to the level of the 3rd world.  You may be striving for mediocrity.  I am not.


----------



## Gunny

sky dancer said:


> Of course not.  I probably won't see it in my lifetime.  It's just the direction the world is going.
> 
> Consequently, it makes sense to talk about it.  We have already moved toward allowing free trade of goods and services.  The free movement of people is next.



That's your misguided and uneducated opinion.  The world will NEVER go that way.


----------



## sky dancer

The world will change and not always in the direction any one individual wants it to.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> according to who ?


A long article I'm halfway through called Equality, Justice and the Problem of International Borders" the Case of Immigration Regulation by Harold Bauder


----------



## sky dancer

Gunny said:


> That's your misguided and uneducated opinion.  The world will NEVER go that way.



Unless, you are God almighty, that statement you made is itself misguided.  It is a logical fallacy called 'generalization'.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> A long article I'm halfway through called Equality, Justice and the Problem of International Borders" the Case of Immigration Regulation by Harold Bauder



well tell Harold we gotta enough trouble with transexuals----we pass on the trans-national stuff.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> well tell Harold we gotta enough trouble with transexuals----we pass on the trans-national stuff.



Here's the truth.  The world population has gotten more mobile.   Many people live in more than one country and have multiple citizen status.

We are all for free trade. 

"Proponents of transnationalism seek to facilitate the flow of people, ideas, and goods between regions. They believe that it has increasing relevance with the rapid growth of globalization. They contend that it does not make sense to link specific nation-state boundaries with for instance migratory workforces, globalized corporations, global money flow, global information flow, and global scientific cooperation.

Transnationalism designates a recent shift in migration patterns. Migration used to be a rather directed movement with a point of departure and a point of arrival. It is nowadays increasingly turning into an ongoing movement between two or more social spaces. Facilitated by increased global transportation and telecommunication technologies, more and more migrants have developed strong transnational ties to more than one home country, blurring the congruence of social space and geographic space."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnationalism



"There is a time and a place in the ceaseless human endeavor to change the world, when alternative visions, no matter how fantastic, provide the grist for shaping powerful forces for change."

David Harvey


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Here's the truth.  The world population has gotten more mobile.   Many people live in more than one country and have multiple citizen status.
> 
> We are all for free trade.
> 
> "There is a time and a place in the ceaseless human endeavor to change the world, when alternative visions, no matter how fantastic, provide the grist for shaping powerful forces for change."
> 
> David Harvey



well tell David I think the change he's talking about sucks too. I don't WANT to be a citizen of the world.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> well tell David I think the change he's talking about sucks too. I don't WANT to be a citizen of the world.



Sure honey.  I'll be sure and tell him that.  I am an American citizen and a citizen of the world.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Sure honey.  I'll be sure and tell him that.  I am an American citizen and a citizen of the world.



Who did ya vote for in the last international election ?


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> Who did ya vote for in the last international election ?



Barack Obama


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Barack Obama




How did he do in China ?


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> How did he do in China ?



Not so well.  They think he may favor human rights for the Tibetans.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Not so well.  They think he may favor human rights for the Tibetans.



  You mean China doesn't let people just walk in an out of their country and do anything they want ???


----------



## AVG-JOE

Againsheila said:


> That's not true at all.  Legal residents, if laid off, are intitled to unemployment.  Many legal immigrants come over here and have organizations to help them to live off the system.  These organizations are free to them and many of them get our tax dollars to function.  We have no such organizations to help Americans learn to work the system.
> 
> At one time they tried to take ssi away from people who weren't citizens and the outcry was enourmous.  The newspaper printed up a story of an old lady living in subsidized housing in Tacoma that had been living off the tax payer for decades.  She didn't speak a word of English.  She was not a citizen, but she was a legal resident (I don't know, maybe she was one of those granted amnesty).



O.k. o.k. - you guys are right... I mean that only citizens _should_ be eligible for public services.  I said it wrong.  I will be the first to agree that a big part of the problem with the current reality is the strain that illegal visitors are putting on the public safety nets.  

The answer is in knowing who is visiting and sending them home if they can't feed themselves.  (making sure that they pay for the ticket home before they can re enter).

-Joe


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> You mean China doesn't let people just walk in an out of their country and do anything they want ???



No.  That was Tibet who let the Chinese in to kill 1.2 million and descrate 6000 monasteries.  

Thanks Mao.


----------



## WillowTree

sky dancer said:


> What I'd like to do in this thread is discuss the *idea* of open borders.  There is a book I'd like to read by Jason Riley, a writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page called _LET THEM IN_.
> Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders



why don;'t you start by explaining how open borders work exactly,, who pays the bills? for medicine and for education,, are all countries expected to cooperate equally??? doyathink?


----------



## WillowTree

sky dancer said:


> I admit it.  I'm in the US illegally.
> 
> "Transnationalization is not a slogan. Transnationalization is a process, and it is a project. Inside and outside Europe, migrants move from one country to another one, looking for a better future, refusing subordination and exploitation. Crossing the borders, migrants are transnationalizing the world. This process is already taking place, that is why the transnationalization of migrants' struggles, against the border regime, must become a project too."
> noborder.org | welcome!






well if you are here illegally why don't you tell us why you think we should pay yer bills, or if you work why you think it's okay to falsify ID or to steal ID>> splain??? whydoncha???


----------



## sky dancer

WillowTree said:


> why don;'t you start by explaining how open borders work exactly,, who pays the bills? for medicine and for education,, are all countries expected to cooperate equally??? doyathink?



Open borders allow freedom of movement of people to come here and work and live.  It does not grant citizenship.  ID would still be necessary and whoever comes here must abide by our laws.

There already are people with dual citizenship.  


It's just an idea, and one I'm investigating.   I'm reading about it.  Is it you idea that someone has to have every detail worked out in advance of a discussion?

How do you think we create anything?  You start first with an idea and then you test it out.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Open borders allow freedom of movement of people to come here and work and live.  It does not grant citizenship.  ID would still be necessary and whoever comes here must abide by our laws.
> 
> There already are people with dual citizenship.
> 
> 
> It's just an idea, and one I'm investigating.   I'm reading about it.  Is it you idea that someone has to have every detail worked out in advance of a discussion?
> 
> How do you think we create anything?  You start first with an idea and then you test it out.



Well before this internationalism all takes place how about we follow the rules?


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Since the country started, farm owners have been hiring immigrants...this is nothing new. And hispanics aren't the first group of immigrants that earned the scorn of the white Americans.
> 
> All have pretty much integrated into our culture, settled down, and produced American families...even though each group in it's turn was accused of taking jobs away from Americans. The language never changes, just the country of origin.
> 
> It's always easy to blame economic problems on a group of people that are different.



I love Ravi's strategy.  Make a claim.  When this claim is disproven, ignore the evidence, and restate the claim.  Well done.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> Well before this internationalism all takes place how about we follow the rules?



You are no fun.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> No.  That was Tibet who let the Chinese in to kill 1.2 million and descrate 6000 monasteries.
> 
> Thanks Mao.



I see that open borders worked about as well for Tibet as they are working for us....Perhaps buddhists should stick to theology and stay the hell out of politics.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Open borders is an _idea_ that I'm interested in discussing.   We do discuss political _ideas_ here don't we?
> 
> Transnationalism is the wave of the future.
> 
> Current immigration policy is based on a historical racist and colonial relationship to third world countries.



Current immigration policy makes it easy for people from third world countries to come here while making it almost impossible for people from first world nations to come here.  

Whatever articles you are quoting from are wrong.  Immigration policy was changed in the 60's.  Before that, we had much much fewer immigrants to come into this country and those that did were well educated.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> You are no fun.



neither are the illegals in Austin--they are running around with AK-47s and body armor.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Of course not.  I probably won't see it in my lifetime.  It's just the direction the world is going.
> 
> Consequently, it makes sense to talk about it.  We have already moved toward allowing free trade of goods and services.  The free movement of people is next.



Where do we have free trade of goods and services?  Let's face it, we let THEIR goods in without tarriffs but they charge tarriffs on the goods we sell to them.  How is that free trade????


Further, they don't have to abide by the same rules that businesses in this country do, therefor it makes it cheaper for our jobs to be sent overseas as well as our factories...how is that free????

What we need is FAIR trade.


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> I see that open borders worked about as well for Tibet as they are working for us....Perhaps buddhists should stick to theology and stay the hell out of politics.



No way.  Living Buddhism _is _politics.  It informs my world view.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Sure honey.  I'll be sure and tell him that.  I am an American citizen and a citizen of the world.



You know, I would love to be a citizen of the world, but when they sent my job to India, they wouldn't let me go with it.  Nope, to the Indian government those jobs were for their citizens.  I could live a lot better in India on $4.00 an hour than I can here on $9.00 an hour.

We are the only country in the world that not only ships our jobs overseas, but allows people from other countries to come in and take the ones we have left.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Where do we have free trade of goods and services?  Let's face it, we let THEIR goods in without tarriffs but they charge tarriffs on the goods we sell to them.  How is that free trade????
> 
> 
> Further, they don't have to abide by the same rules that businesses in this country do, therefor it makes it cheaper for our jobs to be sent overseas as well as our factories...how is that free????
> 
> *What we need is FAIR trade*.



I agree with you.  I'm all for fairness.  Unfortunately, plenty of what life deals us individually and collectively _isn't_ fair.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> No way.  Living Buddhism _is _politics.  It informs my world view.


Did it inform the worldview of the open borders Tibetans?  If so, here's a tip:  Your worldview is irreparably non-functional.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> I agree with you.  I'm all for fairness.  Unfortunately, plenty of what life deals us individually and collectively _isn't_ fair.



yet you chose to ignore some and pay attention to others. There are two sides to the illegal immigration story. You tell one. Is that Buddhism ?


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> yet you chose to ignore some and pay attention to others. There are two sides to the illegal immigration story. You tell one. Is that Buddhism ?



Yes.  It is Buddhism.  Plenty of people are here to tell the other side of the story.  I'm always pick the minority side of the story in the immigration debate.

You're talking to a woman with five planets in Libra.  Believe me.  I look at more than one side of the story.

This is just the side I choose to debate in this topic.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Yes.  It is Buddhism.  Plenty of people are here to tell the other side of the story.  I'm always pick the minority side of the story in the immigration debate.
> 
> You're talking to a woman with five planets in Libra.  Believe me.  I look at more than one side of the story.
> 
> This is just the side I choose to debate in this topic.



Don't you have a horoscope to read and some weed to smoke, hippy dippy?


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> You know, I would love to be a citizen of the world, but when they sent my job to India, they wouldn't let me go with it.  Nope, to the Indian government those jobs were for their citizens.  I could live a lot better in India on $4.00 an hour than I can here on $9.00 an hour.
> 
> We are the only country in the world that not only ships our jobs overseas, but allows people from other countries to come in and take the ones we have left.



The truth of the matter is we are all on our way to being world citizens.  I have friends who cannot afford health insurance.  It is cheaper for them to fly to Asia or Mexico for healthcare than it is to have healthcare in the US without insurance.

Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Same thing with prescription medication.    Hey, I'm just as frustrated as you are to call an American company with a service problem and get someone on the phone from some other part of the world who doesn't understand me and who I can't understand.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Yes.  It is Buddhism.  Plenty of people are here to tell the other side of the story.  I'm always pick the minority side of the story in the immigration debate.
> 
> You're talking to a woman with five planets in Libra.  Believe me.  I look at more than one side of the story.
> 
> This is just the side I choose to debate in this topic.



I wouldn't think a Buddhist would believe in such a thing as an underdog.
(It was a damn good cartoon tho !)

Sorry but planets in libra mean about as much to me as stone tablets carved out of a mountain by GOD.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> The truth of the matter is we are all on our way to being world citizens.  I have friends who cannot afford health insurance.  It is cheaper for them to fly to Asia or Mexico for healthcare than it is to have healthcare in the US without insurance.
> 
> Doesn't that strike you as odd?
> 
> Same thing with prescription medication.    *Hey, I'm just as frustrated as you are to call an American company with a service problem and get someone on the phone from some other part of the world who doesn't understand me and who I can't understand*.



I seriously doubt it...they aren't doing YOUR job.

Believe it or not, I enjoyed that job, especially the flight benefits.  Heck I got to go to Japan, first class both directions for $350.  Pay was crap but hey, first class on a 777, no way in heck I could ever afford that otherwise.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> I wouldn't think a Buddhist would believe in such a thing as an underdog.
> (It was a damn good cartoon tho !)
> 
> Sorry but planets in libra mean about as much to me as stone tablets carved out of a mountain by GOD.



Buddhist practice kindness.  Libra in astrology shows the scale.  It means balance.  It means to weigh both sides of an issue.

I just happen to pick the least popular side to debate in immigration.  Why not?


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> *Buddhist practice kindness.*  Libra in astrology shows the scale.  It means balance.  It means to weigh both sides of an issue.
> 
> I just happen to pick the least popular side to debate in immigration.  Why not?



Gee, my sister in law from Thailand is a Buddist and she hates it when you call an illegal alien an immigrant, she considers it an insult to her.  Having had to compete with illegals for jobs when she got here, she wasn't too happy with them at all, still isn't.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Buddhist practice kindness.  Libra in astrology shows the scale.  It means balance.  It means to weigh both sides of an issue.
> 
> I just happen to pick the least popular side to debate in immigration.  Why not?



Probably because you are personally invested in on side of the argument but hey---nothing sayd you ahve to be "balanced" all the time.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Gee, my sister in law from Thailand is a Buddist and she hates it when you call an illegal alien an immigrant, she considers it an insult to her.  Having had to compete with illegals for jobs when she got here, she wasn't too happy with them at all, still isn't.



Of course Sheila.  All Buddhists don't think alike.  Your sister in law has every right to feel as she does.

I'm sorry she feels insulted.

The truth is we do call people who move to this country for a better life immigrants--including the ones who sneak in without passports and visa.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> I seriously doubt it...they aren't doing YOUR job.
> 
> Believe it or not, I enjoyed that job, especially the flight benefits.  Heck I got to go to Japan, first class both directions for $350.  Pay was crap but hey, first class on a 777, no way in heck I could ever afford that otherwise.



Sounds like a cool job.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> Probably because you are personally invested in on side of the argument but hey---nothing sayd you ahve to be "balanced" all the time.



Not really.  I'm not terribly invested in the immigration argument.  It's the language arguments that interest me.  How we frame the debate.  I'm open to all possibilities.


----------



## dilloduck

sky dancer said:


> Not really.  I'm not terribly invested in the immigration argument.  It's the language arguments that interest me.  How we frame the debate.  I'm open to all possibilities.



We all probably better be open to any possiblilty because we're sure not running the show.


----------



## sky dancer

dilloduck said:


> We all probably better be open to any possiblilty because we're sure not running the show.



True enough.  The whole situation is a mess.


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Sounds like a cool job.



It was, and I miss it.  I truly think our government should do something to bring those jobs back to this country.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> It was, and I miss it.  I truly think our government should do something to bring those jobs back to this country.



I agree.  What would it take?


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> I agree.  What would it take?



Someone other than the democrats or the republicans in charge.


----------



## sky dancer

Againsheila said:


> Someone other than the democrats or the republicans in charge.




Who do you have in mind?  Ron Paul for 2012?


----------



## Againsheila

sky dancer said:


> Who do you have in mind?  Ron Paul for 2012?



actually, I think it's too late.  I think Americans lost their chance this last election to get a 3rd party into power without a bloody revolution and I think from this point on the only way to fix our country is a bloody revolution.  We're in another depression and this one is worse than the last one.  I don't see a way out of it.  I just don't know which is coming first, the civil war, or the revolution.  All I know is that America as we know it will no longer exist within 10 years.  

And yep, I hope and pray I'm wrong.


----------



## bk1983

Againsheila said:


> It was, and I miss it.  I truly think our government should do something to bring those jobs back to this country.



Our government is not the ones who can bring back outsourced jobs.

Unless you are willing to take a pay cut. Businesses only have one

ultimate goal and that is to make money. If a company can slash 40%

from their operating budget by moving it overseas who is the gov't to 

stop them? If you have two options with your goal being to succed and 

maximize profits, one employess will cost you $9 an hour the other will do 

the same job for $4 an hour. Who do you think will be chosen?


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> I love Ravi's strategy.  Make a claim.  When this claim is disproven, ignore the evidence, and restate the claim.  Well done.


You're just being silly now, aren't you?  Or do you honestly think migrant and/or undocumented farmworkers started around the time of your bud Chavez? Ever hear of slavery? How about all the asian farmworkers in the 1800s? The Irish? To name but a few. All integrated.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> You're just being silly now, aren't you?  Or do you honestly think migrant and/or undocumented farmworkers started around the time of your bud Chavez? Ever hear of slavery? How about all the asian farmworkers in the 1800s? The Irish? To name but a few. All integrated.



You suggested that you didn't believe there was a point when Americans did this work themselves.  As stated, there was.  I even provided you with evidence of how illegal aliens were used to break the strikes used to improve the conditions for farm workers.  You ignored it.  

Exactly how many unskilled illegal workers do you think America can integrate before we stop being America, Ravi?  Have you ever looked at the numbers of immigrants we currently are trying to integrate versus the numbers we've historically integrated?  Your thinking patterns make no sense, whatsoever.


----------



## WillowTree

sky dancer said:


> *Open borders allow freedom of movement of people to come here and work and live*.  It does not grant citizenship.  ID would still be necessary and whoever comes here must abide by our laws.
> 
> There already are people with dual citizenship.
> 
> 
> It's just an idea, and one I'm investigating.   I'm reading about it.  *Is it you idea that someone has to have every detail worked out in advance of a discussion?*
> How do you think we create anything?  You start first with an idea and then you test it out.








Yes,, if you are going to back a project or an idea you probably should work out at least the big details such as who is going to pay the bill for education and for hea;th care?? I'm waiting for your answer.


and then tell me if all other countries must participate in your grandiose scheme of open borders,, is there equality for all? including US citizens??


----------



## Againsheila

bk1983 said:


> Our government is not the ones who can bring back outsourced jobs.
> 
> Unless you are willing to take a pay cut. Businesses only have one
> 
> ultimate goal and that is to make money. If a company can slash 40%
> 
> from their operating budget by moving it overseas who is the gov't to
> 
> stop them? If you have two options with your goal being to succed and
> 
> maximize profits, one employess will cost you $9 an hour the other will do
> 
> the same job for $4 an hour. Who do you think will be chosen?



Sorry, but I'd already taken a pay cut.  Some people at United had taken 3 of them.  Labor is a VERY small percentage of the budget for a corporation.  United is having more problems now, thanks to sending those jobs overseas.  Even while I was working there, they opened that call center in India and there wasn't a day that went by that I didn't have to fix something that went wrong with those reservations taken by the people in India.  Now that they have gone 24/7 in India, United is having REAL problems, only now they have to get fixed at the airports, which is why airport rage is so high.  United's stock has plummeted.  Their customer base has shrunk.  In truth, they've lost more by sending our jobs to India than they gained.  The CEO is just too stubborn to admit it.  In fact, when people complained so much and instead of talking to the people in India, just kept dialing until they got an American, United responding by having ALL North American flight reservations handled in India.  That caused them to lose even more customers.  

Again labor is a VERY small percentage of the budget.  Now, due to all their problems, instead of bringing back those jobs, they are charging for you to check ANY bags.  Do you really think they are going to gain more customers with that decision?

When corporations figure out that their employees ARE a great part of the reason the corporation does well, maybe then things will get better.  But I don't see that happening anytime soon.  You do know "you get what you pay for" don't you?


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> You suggested that you didn't believe there was a point when Americans did this work themselves.  As stated, there was.  I even provided you with evidence of how illegal aliens were used to break the strikes used to improve the conditions for farm workers.  You ignored it.
> 
> Exactly how many unskilled illegal workers do you think America can integrate before we stop being America, Ravi?  Have you ever looked at the numbers of immigrants we currently are trying to integrate versus the numbers we've historically integrated?  Your thinking patterns make no sense, whatsoever.


For the most part, since we had slavery, non-citizens have done the majority of farm labor. A few exceptions to the rule do not change this fact.

As to how many illegal workers we can absorb, only the market can predict that. Don't know if you've noticed, but with the downturn in the economy reports are that many of them are leaving. I'd rather have a good economy and illegals than the alternative.


----------



## sky dancer

WillowTree said:


> Yes,, if you are going to back a project or an idea you probably should work out at least the big details such as who is going to pay the bill for education and for hea;th care?? I'm waiting for your answer.
> 
> 
> and then tell me if all other countries must participate in your grandiose scheme of open borders,, is there equality for all? including US citizens??



I'm not sure I back the idea yet.   I am looking at it and reading about it.   This is hardly the time or the environment in which to look at the OPen Border arguments thoughtfully.

Nonetheless, I plan to continue to read about it, and if people are interested, discuss the ideas with them.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> They tried to bust a US citizen.  Get it?



Oh big deal. Our legal system has sent innocent people to the electric chair too. Nothing is perfect. You deal with what you have to work with. So a hispanic, that was WITH the illegals got caught up in an ICE bust... well whoopty freagin' doo... 

They caught the bad guys and the legal citizen was released. The raid was a success.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> Here's the truth.  The world population has gotten more mobile.   Many people live in more than one country and have multiple citizen status.
> 
> We are all for free trade.
> 
> "Proponents of transnationalism seek to facilitate the flow of people, ideas, and goods between regions. They believe that it has increasing relevance with the rapid growth of globalization. They contend that it does not make sense to link specific nation-state boundaries with for instance migratory workforces, globalized corporations, global money flow, global information flow, and global scientific cooperation.
> 
> Transnationalism designates a recent shift in migration patterns. Migration used to be a rather directed movement with a point of departure and a point of arrival. It is nowadays increasingly turning into an ongoing movement between two or more social spaces. Facilitated by increased global transportation and telecommunication technologies, more and more migrants have developed strong transnational ties to more than one home country, blurring the congruence of social space and geographic space."
> Transnationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> "There is a time and a place in the ceaseless human endeavor to change the world, when alternative visions, no matter how fantastic, provide the grist for shaping powerful forces for change."
> 
> David Harvey



One problem here skyhigh, it won't work. What your good author is purporting is just his one sided, narrow minded opinion of what he wants the world to become, his SOCIALIST world. I got news for ya though, it will never happen. The world is too big, and there's too many greedy, ambitious people. There will never be one central government. There will never be ONE PERSON in charge of "the world." Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Man is not perfect. Man fights man. War will ALWAYS be a part of this world, and will ALWAYS stand in the way of what you and your author are dreaming about. The world will lay in ashes LONG before it's people stand around the globe holding hands singing Kum Ba Ya.


----------



## WillowTree

sky dancer said:


> I'm not sure I back the idea yet.   I am looking at it and reading about it.   This is hardly the time or the environment in which to look at the OPen Border arguments thoughtfully.
> 
> Nonetheless, I plan to continue to read about it, and if people are interested, discuss the ideas with them.





there ain't no discussion worth having til you figure out who's gonna pay for it and if it will be equal smeaquel for all people  doh!


----------



## sky dancer

What the good author is doing is thinking outside the box.    He's way ahead of his time.


----------



## sky dancer

WillowTree said:


> there ain't no discussion worth having til you figure out who's gonna pay for it and if it will be equal smeaquel for all people  doh!



Who pays for you to go from one state to the next?  You do.  You pay taxes on gas, you pay sales tax in states that require it and you pay federal and state taxes.

What the author of the article proposes is making travel between Mexico and Canada no different than state to state travel.

Some states you have to go through toll bridges and have your fruit picked over and some you don't.


----------



## 007

sky dancer said:


> What the good author is doing is thinking outside the box.    He's way ahead of his time.



There's nothing timeless, either forward or backwards about ludicrous thought. Some ideas are just purely absurd, just like a frivolous law suit. You should have enough sense to recognize it as such. Any author thinking the earth will someday be one big happy family is nothing more than a quack.


----------



## WillowTree

sky dancer said:


> Who pays for you to go from one state to the next?  You do.  You pay taxes on gas, you pay sales tax in states that require it and you pay federal and state taxes.
> 
> What the author of the article proposes is making travel between Mexico and Canada no different than state to state travel.
> 
> Some states you have to go through toll bridges and have your fruit picked over and some you don't.





no,, clearly you said open borders to *work* and *live*no tell me who's gonna pay for their education and the medical and if it's going to be equal smeaqual between all countries, and stop with the jive about the "author" tell me what you have planned..


----------



## sky dancer

WillowTree said:


> no,, clearly you said open borders to *work* and *live*no tell me who's gonna pay for their education and the medical and if it's going to be equal smeaqual between all countries, and stop with the jive about the "author" tell me what you have planned..



You're presuming there must be a welfare state to support the idea.  That's another discussioin.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> For the most part, since we had slavery, non-citizens have done the majority of farm labor. A few exceptions to the rule do not change this fact.



Proof?  This is quite an exceptional claim.  As a kid who grew up in the rural midwest on a farm, I think you're full of hooey.


----------



## Againsheila

catzmeow said:


> Proof?  This is quite an exceptional claim.  As a kid who grew up in the rural midwest on a farm, I think you're full of hooey.



I can remember the berry fields as a kid, no foreigners there.  I started working the fields at 12.  At 14, the foreigners started showing up.  Then, when I was 18, no more caucasions at all.

I would like to see the proof too.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> Proof?  This is quite an exceptional claim.  As a kid who grew up in the rural midwest on a farm, I think you're full of hooey.


Not to insult your education, but, *ahem.*

Here's a simplified brief history for you.

Brief History of Farm Labor in the United States


----------



## bk1983

Againsheila said:


> Sorry, but I'd already taken a pay cut.  Some people at United had taken 3 of them.  Labor is a VERY small percentage of the budget for a corporation.  United is having more problems now, thanks to sending those jobs overseas.  Even while I was working there, they opened that call center in India and there wasn't a day that went by that I didn't have to fix something that went wrong with those reservations taken by the people in India.  Now that they have gone 24/7 in India, United is having REAL problems, only now they have to get fixed at the airports, which is why airport rage is so high.  United's stock has plummeted.  Their customer base has shrunk.  In truth, they've lost more by sending our jobs to India than they gained.  The CEO is just too stubborn to admit it.  In fact, when people complained so much and instead of talking to the people in India, just kept dialing until they got an American, United responding by having ALL North American flight reservations handled in India.  That caused them to lose even more customers.
> 
> Again labor is a VERY small percentage of the budget.  Now, due to all their problems, instead of bringing back those jobs, they are charging for you to check ANY bags.  Do you really think they are going to gain more customers with that decision?
> 
> When corporations figure out that their employees ARE a great part of the reason the corporation does well, maybe then things will get better.  But I don't see that happening anytime soon.*  You do know "you get what you pay for" don't you*?



You get what you pay for? Are you serious? So when you go to a doctor

and he prescribes medication for you, do you buy the $90 name brand or

the generic $5 equivalent? Even though they have the exact same content 

and are produced under the same stringent methods. Please tell me why 

the name brand is $85 better?


----------



## Againsheila

bk1983 said:


> You get what you pay for? Are you serious? So when you go to a doctor
> 
> and he prescribes medication for you, do you buy the $90 name brand or
> 
> the generic $5 equivalent? Even though they have the exact same content
> 
> and are produced under the same stringent methods. Please tell me why
> 
> the name brand is $85 better?



Well, for one thing, the brand name is made in the USA, the knockoff is made in China and doesn't follow the same stringent controls.  

Which do you think is better?  The highschool play for $5.00, or the profession  play for $50.00?

Nice way to ignore everything I said in my post and pick out one little thing and twist it to fit your thinking.

Do you really believe labor at $4.00 an hour in India is better than labor in the USA at $9.00 and hour?  If so, then why did all those people hang up and call again when they got the people in India?  HMM?  Why was United forced to stop allowing North American calls to be taking in the USA to force people to speak to the labor in India?


----------



## bk1983

Againsheila said:


> Well, for one thing, the brand name is made in the USA, the knockoff is made in China and doesn't follow the same stringent controls.
> 
> Which do you think is better?  The highschool play for $5.00, or the profession  play for $50.00?
> 
> Nice way to ignore everything I said in my post and pick out one little thing and twist it to fit your thinking.
> 
> Do you really believe labor at $4.00 an hour in India is better than labor in the USA at $9.00 and hour?  If so, then why did all those people hang up and call again when they got the people in India?  HMM?  Why was United forced to stop allowing North American calls to be taking in the USA to force people to speak to the labor in India?



First off you are wrong, the generic medication is approved by FDA 

and does have to pass the same levels of quality control. Your example

of the play proved my point to be correct, you dont always get what you 

pay for. Just because union workers demand higher pay doesn't mean they 

are any more skilled then the non union workers. As in your case you may be

right, but the airlines industry is struggling not because of customer service

but rather the cost of fuel. Again I am not saying that the workers from India

are any better then the workers from here. But your whole argument is too

simple and paints a complicated situation with a very broad brush. Higher pay 

doesn't equal higher level of performance, I am sure you had some managers

you worked for that got paid more then you,, even though you could

perform all the same duties they do even better.


----------



## Againsheila

bk1983 said:


> First off you are wrong, the generic medication is approved by FDA
> 
> and does have to pass the same levels of quality control. Your example
> 
> of the play proved my point to be correct, you dont always get what you
> 
> pay for. Just because union workers demand higher pay doesn't mean they
> 
> are any more skilled then the non union workers. As in your case you may be
> 
> right, but the airlines industry is struggling not because of customer service
> 
> but rather the cost of fuel. Again I am not saying that the workers from India
> 
> are any better then the workers from here. But your whole argument is too
> 
> simple and paints a complicated situation with a very broad brush. Higher pay
> 
> doesn't equal higher level of performance, I am sure you had some managers
> 
> you worked for that got paid more then you,, even though you could
> 
> perform all the same duties they do even better.



Actually, the only person's whose job I felt I could do better, was the CEO.


----------



## bk1983

Againsheila said:


> Actually, the only person's whose job I felt I could do better, was the CEO.



Better then the CEO? Even though the average CEO makes 6 figures. 

I guess the company didn't get what they paid for.


----------



## WillowTree

sky dancer said:


> You're presuming there must be a welfare state to support the idea.  That's another discussioin.



I presume nothing,, it's a reality.. what planet do you live on?  I think this is a disucssion that is hopeless.. Kerry On.


----------



## editec

Ravi said:


> You're just being silly now, aren't you? Or do you honestly think migrant and/or undocumented farmworkers started around the time of your bud Chavez? Ever hear of slavery? How about all the asian farmworkers in the 1800s? The Irish? To name but a few. All integrated.


 
Different times, Ravi.

There was no shortage of work to be done back then, and there was a real shortage of workers, too.

Despite all those new immirgants the salaries of workers was still rising, and that was before unions, too.

Right now America does not need ten million new workers.

If it did they would not be illegal aliens.

We'd be not only letting those people in, our industries would be, as they were in the 19th century, sending agents overseas to hire aliens in their own lands, paying their traveling expenses to America, and putting them immediately to work at tasks for which there had been no AMERICAN WORKERS to do those tasks.


----------



## Ravi

They actually do that. Not legally, of course, because we have pretty strict immigration quotas. We've had some scandals recently about immigrants being smuggled in (packed like sardines in trucks) and basically treated as slaves while they work in the cane fields and on the vegetable farms.


----------



## WillowTree

Ravi said:


> They actually do that. Not legally, of course, because we have pretty strict immigration quotas. We've had some scandals recently about immigrants being smuggled in (packed like sardines in trucks) and basically treated as slaves while they work in the cane fields and on the vegetable farms.





yep,, yess sirrreee the most recent one caught was the son of a Democratic congressman from Florida. His son had a truckload of illegals, firearms, cocaine,, and guess what???? he got to go to rehab!! and it was all very hush hush and a family matter.. just let Sarah Palin's daughter get pregnant though and you idiots go apeshit. Well you bought yourselves a bunch of loyalty from hispanics, expect the illegals to keep increasing in numbers and to take about 3/4 of all those wonderful jobs the obamalama is going to create for you,,they'll be bonafide citizens by then and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.   Allen Boyd was the name..


----------



## WillowTree

KVOA News 4, Tucson, Arizona - Congressman's son caught smuggling immigrants




"this is a family matter, and I will be dealing with it privately."


----------



## Againsheila

bk1983 said:


> Better then the CEO? Even though the average CEO makes 6 figures.
> 
> I guess the company didn't get what they paid for.



7 figures, and you're right, I get your point.  However, when it comes to the avereage worker, I still think that you get what you pay for.  Let's face it, in the 60's the average CEO made 50 times what the average worker made and he was usually someone who'd worked his way up in the company.  His focus was on what was best for the company.  Most of them spent their lives working with the company.  Today the average CEO is hired from outside the company, never worked a real job in his life and his goal is to get as much out of the company as fast as they can and get out before the whole thing falls apart.  They make 500 to 1000 times more than the average worker.  No wonder our economy faces a depression the likes of which we've never seen before.

We need to go back to pre-1970 corporation laws.


----------



## catzmeow

WillowTree said:


> yep,, yess sirrreee the most recent one caught was the son of a Democratic congressman from Florida. Allen Boyd was the name..



Allen Boyd is my rep, and I plan to keep voting for him, because he does a good job for North Florida.


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Brief History of Farm Labor in the United States


You consider this proof?  There may have been black labor used in some sections of the U.S. during some periods of time, but the vast majority of time in our history, small farmers were the backbone of our farming industry.  And, they did their own field work.

Again.  Try providing actual proof.


----------



## Againsheila

Ravi said:


> They actually do that. Not legally, of course, because we have pretty strict immigration quotas. We've had some scandals recently about immigrants being smuggled in (packed like sardines in trucks) and basically treated as slaves while they work in the cane fields and on the vegetable farms.



Because those illegals are TAKING jobs Americans could do.  The companies are going behind the backs of the government and recruiting them illegally because it's cheaper for them.  They are taking our jobs and reducing our wages.  We can't afford to have them here.  The government should be deporting all illegals and jailing those who hire them.


----------



## Ravi

WillowTree said:


> KVOA News 4, Tucson, Arizona - Congressman's son caught smuggling immigrants
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "this is a family matter, and I will be dealing with it privately."


Thanks for proving my point Willow. This problem is pretty common...people smuggle in people for all kinds of reasons and exploit them.

In this particular case, I heard the smuggler was a big fan of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, liked to call people names to dehumanize them...I guess it made it easier for him to be involved in the slave trade. Some things never change.


----------



## Ravi

catzmeow said:


> You consider this proof?  There may have been black labor used in some sections of the U.S. during some periods of time, but the vast majority of time in our history, small farmers were the backbone of our farming industry.  And, they did their own field work.
> 
> Again.  Try providing actual proof.


Okay, Kitty, if you want to pretend that all those groups of people weren't really farmworkers or they were actually anglosaxons I bow to your vast knowledge of revisionist history. Even the German immigrants to the midwest never actually assimilated, did they?


----------



## dilloduck

Ravi said:


> Okay, Kitty, if you want to pretend that all those groups of people weren't really farmworkers or they were actually anglosaxons I bow to your vast knowledge of revisionist history. Even the German immigrants to the midwest never actually assimilated, did they?



no--all the German immigrants still speak only german. Same with the Swedes the Danes, the Norwegians, the Poles. It's impossbile to travel there because you can't understand any of them .


----------



## catzmeow

Ravi said:


> Okay, Kitty, if you want to pretend that all those groups of people weren't really farmworkers or they were actually anglosaxons I bow to your vast knowledge of revisionist history. Even the German immigrants to the midwest never actually assimilated, did they?


Ravi, when you've provided actual evidence to support your point, then you can act smarmy and superior.  Until then, it's just a sad and pathetic attempt at avoiding proving the points you think you've made.  I recognize it as such.


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Ravi, when you've provided actual evidence to support your point, then you can act smarmy and superior.  Until then, it's just a sad and pathetic attempt at avoiding proving the points you think you've made.  I recognize it as such.



Practice what you preach.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> Practice what you preach.



Always, sugar bear.  I don't make claims I can't (and don't) substantiate.  That's YOUR territory.


----------



## sky dancer

catzmeow said:


> Always, sugar bear.  I don't make claims I can't (and don't) substantiate.  That's YOUR territory.



You have no business judging anyone.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> You have no business judging anyone.


Awww, you're so cute when you try to be all holier than thou.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Hello, Sky dancer. Good thread. It's kind of what I expect from you.  A global communal  consciousness. A world free from constrictions. Nor borders, no fences. We are ALL brothers and sisters.  How unfortunate,  the people you are idealizing don't share all those  ideology. But one day, I think you will find that out the hard way. Like Neville Chamberlain did  about the policy of appeasement. I don't accept your paradigms because they  seem a little naive about human nature. I think this is about global economics and profits.  And overpopulation taps into that. It isn't about culture, borders, diversity or the milk of human kindness. And you buy that load of crap?


----------



## sky dancer

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Hello, Sky dancer. Good thread. It's kind of what I expect from you.  A global communal  consciousness. A world free from constrictions. Nor borders, no fences. We are ALL brothers and sisters.  How unfortunate,  the people you are idealizing don't share all those  ideology. But one day, I think you will find that out the hard way. Like Neville Chamberlain did  about the policy of appeasement. I don't accept your paradigms because they  seem a little naive about human nature. I think this is about global economics and profits.  And overpopulation taps into that. It isn't about culture, borders, diversity or the milk of human kindness. And you buy that load of crap?



Hi ho Silver--

You may be right about human nature.    What I'm looking at is the future.  We are becoming a global community.  It's likely that country boundaries in the future may more resemble the semi-permeable membranes of cells.

Open borders is way ahead of its time.  Nonetheless, those who write about this idea have a vision of a possible world that human beings may one day decide to collectively create.

We are in a global economic reality.  We seem quite happy to have goods and services cross country boundaries.  Having human beings able to freely move for work is the next step.


----------



## frazzledgear

sky dancer said:


> I thought this idea deserves it's own thread.  Here is a clip from an essay to start the topic going:
> 
> Studies show that most Mexican migrants have similar aspirations. If they could come and go freely, most would move only temporarily. But perversely, U.S. border controls end up making many stay for good, because crossing the border is so risky and costly that once a person has got across he tends to stay. A Mexican who overstays his visa knows that if he returns home, he will never be able to reenter the United States legally.
> 
> 
> Open Borders Work, Part 2



No nation on earth can expect to be able to absorb millions and millions of UNSKILLED workers into their country every year without experiencing very real consequences.  Research has shown that just an increase of 10% of unskilled immigrants into a local job market -increases unemployment among the unskilled US workers in that area by 2%.  And because it results in a downward pressure on wages for unskilled labor overall, it increases the inequality of wages between skilled and unskilled US workers.  The very segment of our own population that suffers the highest unemployment rates even during the best economic times -gets hit the hardest during tough economic times.  Now that there is every reason to believe we are entering a significant recession, this is the segment of our OWN population that is going to feel the most pain.

Part of our problem is that we have very, very generous benefits to immigrants once they do enter this country that work as incentives to remain indefinitely -whether they entered legally or not -not the least of which are public education and medical care.  Both of which are posing an increasingly unmanageable financial burden in areas with high populations of illegals.  The fiscal burden on state and local governments is very real and for those with the largest populations of illegals, getting only more difficult to absorb every year.  With a recession, unemployment rates will continue to rise -with state and local government revenues less as a result -and even less able to absorb those fiscal burdens posed by large populations of unskilled illegals.  The huge influx of illegals from Mexico -who are unskilled workers -has meant we had to cut back on the numbers who wanted to enter legally from all other nations, allowing only highly skilled workers.  No exceptions.  So the poorest in other countries -with stories no less heartwrenching - don't have a chance at all of legally entering this country and are paying the penalty because they are already so over-represented by illegals.  Illegals now account for roughly half of all immigration to this country and their lack of skills disproportionately over-represented among all immigrants, legal or not.

My biggest concern is that I have a real problem with the idea of rewarding Mexico for the problems their own government has created for these people with a change of US policy that would allow any and all unskilled Mexicans to freely enter into this country without limitations on numbers - and get a job.  Especially since this is a problem created and fostered by the corrupt Mexican government. 

Illegal Mexicans are nearly entirely of native Indian heritage -and victims of the vicious, bigoted, prejudicial policies of Mexican government that is controlled and ruled by Spanish-heritage Mexicans -with their official and unofficial policies that insure the best jobs in all industries and most politically influential jobs will only be filled by Spanish heritage Mexicans.  (There is a reason the Mexican President -regardless of his name -never looks like the Mexicans who enter this country.  He is always of Spanish descent, not native Indian.)  The corrupt Mexican government actively insures this segment is the poorest and most desperate, then actively encourages this same segment of their own population to get out of the country - and then does it all it can to aid them in entering our country illegally.  Their oppressive policies are intended to harm this segment of their own population and insure they have the most difficult time finding any employment in their own country.  And then encourages them to just get out.  They don't want those citizens to EVER return, they are considered "undesirable" people -but very much want to see them continue to send a chunk of their earnings back to their country since that money represents a huge chunk of their economy.  Local Mexican governments routinely bilk these people on their way into our country,  play a significant role in human trafficking with officials intent on nothing more than getting their share by exploiting their most desperate and poorest citizens -after already enforcing the policies that insured they would be desperate and poor in the first place.

Why should our economy try to absorb the financial burden of a situation that has actually been created and fostered by the corrupt government in Mexico -relieving it of any pressure to reform?  With an open door policy whereby the US assumes responsibility for their poorest and most unskilled citizens they created in the first place -we only encourage the Mexican government to continue with its racial oppression of a segment of their own population, rewarding them for driving out their own citizens while continuing to benefit by their work in THIS country -all so they can continue to hold the reins of power and operate government with policies intended to benefit the Spanish-heritage Mexicans the most.  

I don't blame desperate and poor people from trying to improve their circumstances by searching for work in a more promising country.  In their shoes, I would probably do the same thing.  But I have a real problem with these one-sided conversations that totally ignore the fact that the corrupt Mexican government created this problem in the first place with policies of oppression born of racial hatred.  Editorials and political speeches that totally ignore this while expounding about how the best solution is to cooperate more fully with the corrupt Mexican government in its oppression of their own citizens and their policies intended to insure that Mexico is ruled for and by those of Spanish-heritage only -by making it even easier for the Mexican government to rid the country of people it deems "undesirable", will only relieve what little pressure has been applied to this government to reform.  And that little pressure hasn't accomplished much anyway.   

These kind of one-sided discussions that totally ignore the root cause of this problem in the first place presents a true win-win situation for the Mexican government.  They rid the country of "undesirables", are encouraged to step it up even more - while gladly allowing the money they send back to support their economy.  And absolutely no one making a peep about their vicious, bigoted policies!  But this population is truly being actively dispossessed and disowned by their government and literally driven out of their country -while the ignorant in this country appear to be applauding it by insisting we must reward Mexico for it by opening our doors even wider.


----------



## frazzledgear

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Hello, Sky dancer. Good thread. It's kind of what I expect from you.  A global communal  consciousness. A world free from constrictions. Nor borders, no fences. We are ALL brothers and sisters.  How unfortunate,  the people you are idealizing don't share all those  ideology. But one day, I think you will find that out the hard way. Like Neville Chamberlain did  about the policy of appeasement. I don't accept your paradigms because they  seem a little naive about human nature. I think this is about global economics and profits.  And overpopulation taps into that. It isn't about culture, borders, diversity or the milk of human kindness. And you buy that load of crap?



A world free of borders, huh?  Good luck getting the other 194 nations of the world to go along with that one.  Because all the other 194 countries claim their sovereign and inherent right to know who is entering their country and for what purposes -because their greatest obligation is to protect their own citizens.  Not the billions who aren't.  Not so oddly enough, the only nation on earth that people insist have no right to know that -is the US.  And of course while claiming their own right in this regard -scores of those other 194 nations would all LOVE it if the US were prevented from knowing who was coming into their country and for what purposes.


----------



## sky dancer

The European Union laready does this among its members.  The US could do the same with Canada and Mexico.

It may start out as a continental solution--and eventually become worldwide.  It's the wave of the future.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Skydancer, I read the UK boards on immigration with much sympathy. A lot of anger & sadness  there. Poles, Muslims, the dilution of culture. Borders may be arbitrary things. Cultural Identity may be a construct of random events we are born into. Maybe not. In the meantime, all got I get is a migraine. I see all these "Immigrants" that NEED cling to a culture, customs , language  and land they left behind.  Call that diversity or hypocrisy, I don't know.   They   seem to feel it's all quite real and worth preserving.  These people want dignity and respect. They don't feel obligated to return it. And you, dear, seemingly want to re-define the issue to fit  THEIR  agenda. Sorry, that is how it seems to me.   "WE"  want our culture preserved and respected,  these immigrants  want  something else altogether. Diversity , I think not. This debate is a vicious cycle and it won't ever end . Maybe this is trite, but respect is a two way street . Yes?


----------



## sky dancer

Silver--

Open borders is the direction the world is going.  What's the alternative?  More wars?  

The part of your post that I find difficult to respond to is your assertion that immigrants expect to be respected without being respectful in kind.  Generalities are always challenging.  Some immigrants are respectful and others are not.  Just as some American citizens are respectful of other people's cultures as they move into our country and others are not.

Respect _is _a two way street.


----------



## sky dancer

"What is a border? 

First off, it&#8217;s War. Literally, the border is a relic of the Mexican-American war of 1848, when America &#8220;bought&#8221; half of Mexico&#8217;s territory (about 500,000 sq. miles) at gunpoint. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo still stands, marking the Rio Grande as the &#8216;line&#8217; which &#8216;separates&#8217; us from them. The border is a monument without a museum, doused with techno-media and military machines in order to revive its symbolism with a vengeance. Yet the war never really ended, only moving underground, in shadows, in stealth. Bodies still pile up at the edges, and governments still negotiate new treaties (trade agreements) all the time. 

Through such agreements, the border becomes a form of Property. It is enclosure, forming the body proper of the country, its outline, its image in the sand. Once this illusion becomes solidified in the minds of the citizens, its defense becomes unquestionable. Who wouldn&#8217;t want to defend their property? The border becomes the consensual hallucination of an imagined community of &#8216;citizens&#8217; who share nothing but a relationship to what&#8217;s &#8220;outside.&#8221; We&#8217;re not them, they say, those are &#8216;aliens&#8217;. If to be an alien means to embody the subversion of their entire system of property, then by all means indict us! Property does not make the border possible, but on the contrary, the border makes all property possible. And with that, Capital as well. 

Property, we know, is theft. And theft, capture, and control are the main functions of any State. Besides cops, prisons, and government buildings, the border is the closest thing you&#8217;ll get to the material manifestation of the state in all its naked force. The collusion between capitalists, militarists, racist libertarians and &#8216;pluralist&#8217; democrats to &#8220;contain the state of emergency&#8221;, i.e., the loss of their profit, is blatant at every border site. Every &#8220;border zone&#8221; is chaos, and so the state tries to covers it up with a thousand bureaucracies, rules, and technologies. Invoke the border and you are on standing on their ground, so be ready to fight dirty. But that ground can be broken, like tree roots smashing upwards through concrete. The state tries to organize the chaos from above, but we all know how that goes: more resistance from below.--MORE AT LINK.... 
publish.nyc.indymedia.org | For A World Without Borders! An Article from The New York Rat Issue #8


----------



## sky dancer

Here is a quote from Howard Zinn-- professor emeritus at Boston University, perhaps this country's premier radical historian.

"The world that I envision is one in which national boundaries no longer exist, in which you can move from one country to another with the same ease in which we can move from Massachusetts to Connecticut, a world without passports or visas or immigration quotas. True globalization in the human sense, in which we recognize that the world is one and that human beings everywhere have the same rights.

    In a world like that you could not make war because it is your family, just as we are not thinking of making war on an adjoining state or even a far-off state. It would be a world in which the riches of the planet would be distributed in an equitable fashion, where everybody has access to clean water. Yes, that would take some organization to make sure that the riches of the earth are distributed according to human need.

    A world in which people are free to speak, a world in which there was a true bill of rights. A world in which people had their fundamental economic needs taken care of would be a world in which people were freer to express themselves because political rights and free speech rights are really dependent on economic status and having fundamental economic needs taken care of.

    I think it would be a world in which the boundaries of race and religion and nation would not become causes for antagonism. Even though there would still be cultural differences and still be language differences, there would not be causes for violent action of one against the other.

    I think it would be a world in which people would not have to work more than a few hours a day, which is possible with the technology available today. If this technology were not used in the way it is now used, for war and for wasteful activities, people could work three or four hours a day and produce enough to take care of any needs. So it would be a world in which people had more time for music and sports and literature and just living in a human way with others."
t r u t h o u t | Howard Zinn: A World Without Borders


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Skydancer;  I think you know better than equating WAR with ...Immigration, legal or otherwise. I  thought better of you than such hyperbole.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Let me add this little tidbit here, skydancer. I bet H. Zinn doesn't deal with illegal aliens, and despite all that crap, he isolates himself among all those WHITE elitists that think JUST LIKE HE DOES. Wow,  that is commitment for ya. He isolates himself among the other whites. He  can hire guards to further protect his culture and his IDEALS and then have the balls to proselytize against immigration laws? Yeah, Right.  I suppose Zinn isn't any different than those that  exploit "Undocumented Immigrants", either.  Color me a little SKEPTICAL. No, sorry. Open borders are just idealist  dreams , that is all it will ever be.  It is totally against HUMAN nature.


----------



## sky dancer

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Skydancer;  I think you know better than equating WAR with ...Immigration, legal or otherwise. I  thought better of you than such hyperbole.



Actually, war is at the heart of my concern about immigration.  Some of the anti-immigration activists see this immigration crisis as an 'invasion' which is a militant term.  I come to this discussion of immigration from an anti-war stance.  Some anti-immigration extremists want to militarize the borders further and create a Palestinian/Israeli like fence for 700 milles.

I agree with Howard Zinn's radical historical view of Mexican immigration--within the context of a never finished war with Mexico.


----------



## sky dancer

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Let me add this little tidbit here, skydancer. I bet H. Zinn doesn't deal with illegal aliens, and despite all that crap, he isolates himself among all those WHITE elitists that think JUST LIKE HE DOES. Wow,  that is commitment for ya. He isolates himself among the other whites. He  can hire guards to further protect his culture and his IDEALS and then have the balls to proselytize against immigration laws? Yeah, Right.  I suppose Zinn isn't any different than those that  exploit "Undocumented Immigrants", either.  Color me a little SKEPTICAL. No, sorry. Open borders are just idealist  dreams , that is all it will ever be.  It is totally against HUMAN nature.



You don't know Howard Zinn personally, so none of your claims about him take away from his arguments.

Color me skeptical when YOU bring up Howard Zinn's skin color and call him an elitist.

Of course, open borders are idealistic.  But considering that they exist now tried NOW in Europe I'd hardly call them 'just idealist dreams'.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

So, we quibble here.  You don't  know H. Zinn from Enoch Powell or Tom Tancrado. Suffer the children unto thee. I live in a barrio. None of my business, but  were do you live? You know what I mean. You seem to be presume alot here. I don't think YOU will put your money were your idealism is, either. Try it. Put that idealism to a test, skip the crap.


----------



## sky dancer

Hi Silver-

I know Tom Tancredo from Howard Zinn, that's for sure.  

You presume quite a bit yourself.  We could be getting to know each other.  Aren't you the same fellow who just posted about mutual respect?

I put my money where my idealism is--that's why I live where I live.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Skydancer: I meant no offense. I don't always like the things I post here,  my  apologies. On that same note, please don't patronize me, either.  I'm caught between two worlds . It's unpleasant and difficult. Part Anglo, part Hispanic. And, there isn't much middle ground. That isn't me being an intolerant jerk. ( Well, maybe a little... nobody is perfect. )  You are an idealist? So am I. Borders are not evil things. They are quite necessary sometimes. And yes, RESPECT goes a long way, too.


----------



## sky dancer

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Skydancer: I meant no offense. I don't always like the things I post here,  my  apologies. On that same note, please don't patronize me, either.  I'm caught between two worlds . It's unpleasant and difficult. Part Anglo, part Hispanic. And, there isn't much middle ground. That isn't me being an intolerant jerk. ( Well, maybe a little... nobody is perfect. )  You are an idealist? So am I. Borders are not evil things. They are quite necessary sometimes. And yes, RESPECT goes a long way, too.




I don't know how I may have patronized you.  It is not my intent.  I never said borders are evil things--I said I can imagine a world with porous borders and it already exists in Europe.  We can create that on our continent too, if we choose to.

I am sorry if any of my posts offended you.  I am posing some philosophical questions in regard to immigration.  We do have philosophies behind immigration policy.  Historically, those policies have been racist and exclusive.

Some of the authors I'm reading suggest that if people are allowed to come and live and work in other countries easily--that we will still need to help third world countries become stronger.  

I'm interested in hearing more about how you feel caught between anglo and hispanic worlds.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

I just picked up a little boy that doesn't speak a word of English in my living room, he just tried  to hurt his older sister.  In my house, right now.   This isn't some kind of far out dream world I live in, it's confused and its a mess and I just wish everyone would stop the crap and just do the bloody right thing instead of playing games. These kid's Mexican parents, the INS, all of us. You know how depressing this issue is to me ? It   seems simple in practice, no so in reality. I have been in the position to report people and businesses  to the INS, and do you know why I haven't? I don't know, either.  Because I am a coward or idealistic? Things aren't so simple. For me, it isn't an abstraction and I recognize "THEY" are human beings. But, they can still immigrate LEGALLY. I have seen their blood spilt on my front walk, and behind my house. I know that that blood could just as easily have been mine, or yours, for that matter.


----------



## sky dancer

I'm happy to be getting to know you, Silver.   I agree, when it comes to immigration right now, things are not simple.

It's a luxury for some of us to be able to discuss the _idea _of open borders.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Living with illegals is no luxury, skydancer. It complicates things. They are human, but they  really should be able to follow the rules. They can.  They won't.  We excuse them... we pretend they are the underdog and forgive them their trespasses. I don't,  I live with these losers. They deserve all the bad press they get, and even more. It isn't a lie. It isn't exaggerated.


----------



## jodylee

don't worry when the north american union is formed you wont have to worry about borders. maybe start learning spanish, thats my tip.


----------



## AVG-JOE

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Living with illegals is no luxury, skydancer. It complicates things. They are human, but they  really should be able to follow the rules. They can.  They won't.  We excuse them... we pretend they are the underdog and forgive them their trespasses. I don't,  I live with these losers. They deserve all the bad press they get, and even more. It isn't a lie. It isn't exaggerated.



It could be simple... 4 steps:

1.  Make 'American' the official language - not 'English'... I've been to England and they talk funny!  People should be free to converse and conduct business in any language they want, but all government business should be done in the American language.

2.  Take control of our borders.

3.  Open the borders up to everyone who wants to come here and work, as long as they understand that they will be required to register every time they cross the border and if they fuck up and commit a crime they can never come back.  We should probably include a provision of some sort that addresses any children born here to non-citizens.

4.  Come up with some sort of bonus for actually being a bona fide citizen like "All citizens can earn $50,000 per year tax free", or "Only citizens can own property".

The only thing lacking would opening up 'We, The People Health Insurance' so we could charge aliens who wish to participate $10 per month more than the citizens who voluntarily participate.

See, simple!

-Joe


----------



## Mr. President

Secure borders.

Allow lower number of immigrants in.  

Do not allow children to be granted immediate citizenship.

All temporary workers required to check in three times a month.  Missing two check-ins is ground for revocation of work visa and removal from country.  

No tax funded program benefitting the unemployed will be allowed to sponsor immigrants who have not recieved full citizenship.


----------



## 007

A country is like your home. Your home is a microcosm of your country. Would you simply throw open your doors for any Tom, Dick or Harry to come and go as they pleased? I think not, and neither should we do so with our country.


----------



## SW2SILVERQUASI

Skydancer: You  cite examples that are neither compelling nor convincing.  Yes, It's me, the guy that lives with illegal aliens, yet again,  like a bad penny. I like the idea of open borders, just the same way I like the honor  system.  But, funny thing happens when honesty competes with avarice. Illegal aliens don't give *%@+  about the Nation or the laws or the culture they are invading. I know it makes you all warm a fuzzy inside, to help these poor poor poor folks and all that liberal junk. I am  fellow liberal, by the by. No joke, No mockery,  I usually vote Democratic  and all that stuff. Scout's honor. Well, I never was a scout, and I don't have a bible to swear on. Agnostic.  Sorry. See the thing about this issue, it's a matter of ethics,more than anything else. Not  so much Mexican illegal immigrants  that are the focus here, but  the attitude of  all Americans. Particularly the ones that support open borders and hire illegal aliens.  Let me guess, sweat heart...You live in a universe far far far away from any taint of "diversity"  illegal aliens bring with them. I know you don't. Euphemisms aside, and all those cherry picked facts you  people dig up aside. Very few of you have to deal with the heavy difficult issues illegals bring with them, so, in effect,  and any mention of how bad illegals are is just exaggerations  by petty jingoistic hysterical conservative ultra right neocon  racist, as  far as you folks are concerned.  Nope, not really . Keep  me in mind. I am as real  as death and illegals are. By the way,  how many illegal aliens do you know? Or suspect, but can't ask them?  How many of them are your immediate neighbors? Or married to a relative? Just curious.  I live in that world, and it isn't and exaggeration. We deserve better.


----------



## 007

SW2SILVERQUASI said:


> Skydancer: You  cite examples that are neither compelling nor convincing.  Yes, It's me, the guy that lives with illegal aliens, yet again,  like a bad penny. I like the idea of open borders, just the same way I like the honor  system.  But, funny thing happens when honesty competes with avarice. Illegal aliens don't give *%@+  about the Nation or the laws or the culture they are invading. I know it makes you all warm a fuzzy inside, to help these poor poor poor folks and all that liberal junk. I am  fellow liberal, by the by. No joke, No mockery,  I usually vote Democratic  and all that stuff. Scout's honor. Well, I never was a scout, and I don't have a bible to swear on. Agnostic.  Sorry. See the thing about this issue, it's a matter of ethics,more than anything else. Not  so much Mexican illegal immigrants  that are the focus here, but  the attitude of  all Americans. Particularly the ones that support open borders and hire illegal aliens.  Let me guess, sweat heart...You live in a universe far far far away from any taint of "diversity"  illegal aliens bring with them. I know you don't. Euphemisms aside, and all those cherry picked facts you  people dig up aside. Very few of you have to deal with the heavy difficult issues illegals bring with them, so, in effect,  and any mention of how bad illegals are is just exaggerations  by petty jingoistic hysterical conservative ultra right neocon  racist, as  far as you folks are concerned.  Nope, not really . Keep  me in mind. I am as real  as death and illegals are. By the way,  how many illegal aliens do you know? Or suspect, but can't ask them?  How many of them are your immediate neighbors? Or married to a relative? Just curious.  I live in that world, and it isn't and exaggeration. We deserve better.



Your arguments couldn't be more realistic. But I'm afraid your wasting your breath. Sky Dancer does not, and I suspect will not, EVER, give one clue that she hears anything other than her own unrealistic belief that the world is 'moving towards' a new world order of open borders. She's a broken record of moon bat idealism. She's the Geno Roddenberry of open borders, and a vehement adversary of illegal immigration. There is no room in her mind for any argument, however based in fact or actuality to the contrary.

It's been fun reading your posts though. I've enjoyed it.


----------



## StaleBO

Pale Rider said:


> Your arguments couldn't be more realistic...
> 
> It's been fun reading your posts though. I've enjoyed it.


I agree. I have been reading this thread with interest and believe SW2SILVERQUASI  provided excellent points.

Unabated immigration is placing a tremendous burden on state and local governments. Education, health care, prisons and a host of other social services are assumed burdens where those benefiting rarely contribute to their funding certainly not in a proportional amount. Now only if the state and local governments could do what the federal government does... Article One Section 8 it.


----------



## Meister

Unfortunatley,  most governments like our far left party is all for a one world government.  JFK brought it forward in the early 1960's.   Fact of the matter is it doesn't work, and it won't work.  Europe is finding all sorts of problems with it, and they are the forerunners of it.  If the left wants to have open borders, they should volunteer 25% of their wages just for the funding of this operation...then pay their own taxes with what's left over.  I bet not one of them will step forward.  There is enough democrats that could fund the operation for several years to come.  Only if they all agree, of course.  But don't come looking for me to fund an idiotic idea such as open borders.  I lived in California for decades...they now are 42 billion in the red.  A large portion is for the illegal criminals.
  I knew a 20 year old illegal that worked for a construction company.  He claimed 6 dependants on his W-4, he was single and had no children.  He recieved 88% of his wages, and never filed taxes at the end of the year.  The next year he came up with another social security card, and did it all over again, and he bragged about it.  Don't go telling me how they pay taxes, too...OK?


----------



## frazzledgear

sky dancer said:


> The European Union laready does this among its members.  The US could do the same with Canada and Mexico.
> 
> It may start out as a continental solution--and eventually become worldwide.  It's the wave of the future.



But this isn't something supported by anywhere close to the majority in the US, Canada and Mexico.  Making it easier to travel between countries that share a border and mutual interests isn't unheard of in history whatsoever -but it never resulted in open borders among ALL nations in the past -and never remained a permanent feature among those who did it either.  Personally, I think the US would be well served by steering clear of quite a few things that Europe does.  Europe is a dying, decadent continent -long past being a real force in its contributions to civilization.  Its demise is a forgone conclusion, they have already adopted the faulty foundations that insure its collapse and there is no stopping that train now.  And once it does -you watch just how fast the European Union disintegrates due to ethnic, cultural, financial, economic and territorial clashes.  THAT is one of the major recurring themes in the story of man -from individuals protecting their interests against individuals with competing interests, clans protecting their own interests from competing clans - to nations doing so.  In the end, the French will value their own interests and welfare over that of all others, even at the expense of others.  You don't have to go back too far in history to see the French are particularly likely to value their own welfare and their own pocketbook over the best interests of any others -even in the best of times.  France's history is one of stabbing in the back every single ally it has ever had -as long as it got some perceived benefit by doing so and even when doing so was at the great expense of others -France did it.  Something the other EU members would do well to NEVER forget -LOL. 

Open borders is not the "wave of the future" and never will be.  Even the idealistic views of some in Europe and US combined do not represent the values held by the majority in the world.  Maybe some haven't noticed, but western civilization is under attack on numerous fronts in the world, not just by means of open violence.  Open borders isn't going to be the future in Southeast Asia, China, Africa, Russia or South America.  The notion that it is -is an idealistic pipe dream by those who envision the future as some kind of rosy, handholding circle jerk of billions all singing Kumbaya in the same key.  

But these are the very people with the least understanding of human nature in the first place who cannot come to grips with the fact that the entire species has never once all joined hands and sung Kumbaya, with open borders everywhere and all man living in peace for eons after -and never will.  Much less understand why that is.  It is not in our nature and no amount of millions more thrown into "re-education camps" will ever change that.  We aren't more intelligent as a species than 200 years ago or 1000 years ago.  Only more knowledgeable -thanks to the same high level of intelligence of past generations whose gains allow future generations to skip the hard work of having to make those discoveries for themselves and just build upon it with their own discoveries that first require the knowledge gained by past generations.  But gaining KNOWLEDGE does not mean it results in a change in the innate traits of the members of the species.  The members of our species are also no more artistically or musically gifted than in the past, not born more compassionate, more considerate or more loving and no less likely to violently defend itself from attack.  People are not better parents, not better citizens, not better friends, not better neighbors  -and in fact, it is arguable that we are much worse in several of these areas than many past generations.  

The species has always been far better served by those with the clear-eyed honest appraisal of what the species really and unchangeably is and what it is not.   And then adopt the institutions and governments that try to exploit human nature, both their best traits AND those deemed "bad" because they will always exist in every society no matter what  -and do so in order to produce the greatest good.  Those that operate on the assumption that the "good" traits of the species can be preserved, never before seen "preferred traits" somehow educated into the species and those deemed to be "bad" traits extinguished out of the species entirely - invariably result in an increase in human suffering on a massive scale and the needless deaths of millions.   History is replete with those examples.  The idealistic can't even successfully turn a single country into an ant colony and repeated attempts even on that level have only caused millions to suffer.  Just imagine the scale of misery if attempting it on a global scale.  Ants still place the welfare of their colony above that of another ant colony -and never place the best interests of the entire species above those of their own colony.  Human beings have the innate traits necessary for a totally different survival strategy from ants -and they are not interchangeable with those of another species, much less an insect species.  

One of the unchangeable traits of our species is directly related to the identical instinct all living things have -the survival instinct.  The exception to this occurs only in a very, very rare individual -who often ends up dead as a result.  What emerges when times are difficult or when under threat is when innate, unchangeable traits in any species appear.  Among all higher animals the same pattern emerges -because it is provably THE best strategy for survival of the individual AND species.  That pattern is first insuring survival and welfare of self, followed by family, neighborhood, town/city, state.  "Entire species" isn't even on the list for any species, including ours.  The idealistic among us think it would be NICE if this pattern were entirely reversed, just like they think it would be NICE if everyone else had THEIR values.  But by doing so, they have in reality only announced themselves as a threat to those who refuse to share their values.  Then its just a matter of how far such people are willing to go to IMPOSE their values on others.  And because they think that would be "nice", the idealistic never stop trying to do it -which in and of itself has been a cause of war and violence.  But not the only one.  A "re-invented" species whose members all put the welfare of faceless billions and total strangers above the welfare of themselves and their loved ones is never going to happen.    

And because THAT will never happen -neither will the world all join hands and sing Kumbaya and neither will we have open borders on a global basis.


----------

