California grants drivers licenses for illegal immigrants (1 Viewer)

[drummer]

<_<

I am sooooo glad I don't live there anymore. I've been gone 7 years and I haven't regretted a single second of it.

Where did you move to?

His profile says Georgia. Now I have never been to Georgia but from what I know I would take California at least NorCal where I'm at before that place. People complain about Cali but man is it an awesome place to live. Been here about 7 years.

Well, California isn't for everybody, and thank God for that.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Why exactly are they going to get a license? So they won't be breaking the law?

Why wouldn't they? There are a bunch of sanctuary cities in California (including LA, SD, SF, etc.).

They're driving now without a license, right? Why the assumption they will rush to pay money for insurance and a license?

probable cause....driving while brown. leads to more tickets, that don't get paid, more time wasted in our courts, more people that shouldn't really be in jail. yay CA!!

 

[RCon]

Understandable to me. The states need to respond in some way due to the failure of our federal government.

Yet, when Arizona responded, the same people applauding this move castigated them and called them racists and worse.

Thats because it was racist and worse.

Yes, we're all aware that everyone and everything is racist (really, does the charge even mean anything when you use it about everything?). That aside, either states are free to respond due to failure of the feds or they're not. You can't argue that they're only free to respond when they respond the way you like.

 

[SteevieG]

<_<

I am sooooo glad I don't live there anymore. I've been gone 7 years and I haven't regretted a single second of it.

Where did you move to?

His profile says Georgia. Now I have never been to Georgia but from what I know I would take California at least NorCal where I'm at before that place. People complain about Cali but man is it an awesome place to live. Been here about 7 years.

Well, California isn't for everybody, and thank God for that.

It was a great place to grow up when I was younger, but no way would I want to raise kids there now. I lived there for 30+ years and still have many friends and family there who are looking for a way out.

 

[humpback]

Why exactly are they going to get a license? So they won't be breaking the law?

Why wouldn't they? There are a bunch of sanctuary cities in California (including LA, SD, SF, etc.).

They're driving now without a license, right? Why the assumption they will rush to pay money for insurance and a license?

It's an amazing thing, but history shows that when people are given the opportunity to do things legally, they usually do.

Like immigrating?

Absolutely. Give them the chance to come here legally, and they will do so.

And please don't speak to me about how these people should have "waited in line". For most of them, there was no line.

 

[Ghost Rider]

So basically, in Tim's world, entrance into this country should be a free-for-all.

 

[Sarnoff]

So basically, in Tim's world, entrance into this country should be a free-for-all.

Tim's world is a very f###ed up place. Rainbows and unicorns and anarchy.

 

[timschochet]

Understandable to me. The states need to respond in some way due to the failure of our federal government.

Yet, when Arizona responded, the same people applauding this move castigated them and called them racists and worse.

Thats because it was racist and worse.

Yes, we're all aware that everyone and everything is racist (really, does the charge even mean anything when you use it about everything?). That aside, either states are free to respond due to failure of the feds or they're not. You can't argue that they're only free to respond when they respond the way you like.

I sure as hell can. And I do.

 

[timschochet]

So basically, in Tim's world, entrance into this country should be a free-for-all. exactly as it was before 1925.

Fixed.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.

The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.

They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.

They are supposed to be here. The laws that make them illegal are insidious and against the very clear intent of the founders of this nation.

What are you smokingsnortinginjecting?

 

[timschochet]

Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.

The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.

They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.

They are supposed to be here. The laws that make them illegal are insidious and against the very clear intent of the founders of this nation.

What are you smokingsnortinginjecting?

I dunno- the Declaration of Independence? The poem on the Statue of Liberty? That sort of stuff.

 

[drummer]

Every time I begin to think about the logic in this, my head hurts...and I live in CA. WTF is wrong with this state? Totally unreal.

The logic is that these people are here already and are presumably using their vehicles to go to work. If you're not going to deport them then they should be able to function like regular members of society.

They're ILLEGALS. Why should they be able to function like regular members of society? They aren't supposed to be here.

They are supposed to be here. The laws that make them illegal are insidious and against the very clear intent of the founders of this nation.

What are you smokingsnortinginjecting?

I dunno- the Declaration of Independence? The poem on the Statue of Liberty? That sort of stuff.

Then you're doing that wrong too.

 

[Mile High]

There really is no good reason to be against this. They are allready here, they will always be here might as well make the best of it.

 

[RCon]

Understandable to me. The states need to respond in some way due to the failure of our federal government.

Yet, when Arizona responded, the same people applauding this move castigated them and called them racists and worse.

Thats because it was racist and worse.

Yes, we're all aware that everyone and everything is racist (really, does the charge even mean anything when you use it about everything?). That aside, either states are free to respond due to failure of the feds or they're not. You can't argue that they're only free to respond when they respond the way you like.

I sure as hell can. And I do.

Gotcha. State legislatures only have the right to act when their actions fit your view of the world.

 

[Statorama]

There really is no good reason to be against this. They are allready here, they will always be here might as well make the best of it.

The old "it's going to happen anyway, just lay back and enjoy it" defense

 

[Statorama]

oh....and take THAT you immigrants who came here and went through the proper channels and committed to the process of becoming legalized citizens

suckers

 

[Jewell]

They are supposed to be here. The laws that make them illegal are insidious and against the very clear intent of the founders of this nation.

What are you smokingsnortinginjecting?

I dunno- the Declaration of Independence? The poem on the Statue of Liberty? That sort of stuff.

sss

Yet the poem on the Statue of Liberty was not drafted by the "founders of this nation", and the Declaration of Independence has absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

We know "the very clear intent of the founders of this nation" because many of the founders were members of the first Congress which explicitly spelled out the initial terms for naturalization of immigrants to the United States.

Since you seem unfamiliar with the Naturalization Act of 1790, I'll tell you before you look it up that it's quite different than the open immigration that you seem to be attributing to the founders.

 

[timschochet]

They are supposed to be here. The laws that make them illegal are insidious and against the very clear intent of the founders of this nation.

What are you smokingsnortinginjecting?

I dunno- the Declaration of Independence? The poem on the Statue of Liberty? That sort of stuff.

sss

Yet the poem on the Statue of Liberty was not drafted by the "founders of this nation", and the Declaration of Independence has absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

We know "the very clear intent of the founders of this nation" because many of the founders were members of the first Congress which explicitly spelled out the initial terms for naturalization of immigrants to the United States.

Since you seem unfamiliar with the Naturalization Act of 1790, I'll tell you before you look it up that it's quite different than the open immigration that you seem to be attributing to the founders.

It was certainly bigoted about who could become citizens (slaves, Asians, Native Americans excluded), but what's important is that it did not limit immigration in any way. In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

 

[timschochet]

oh....and take THAT you immigrants who came here and went through the proper channels and committed to the process of becoming legalized citizens

suckers

What a terrible argument this is. Reminds of those people who claim that somehow their heterosexual marriage is hurt by gay marriages.

The legal immigrants will not be affected by this in the least.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Understandable to me. The states need to respond in some way due to the failure of our federal government.

Yet, when Arizona responded, the same people applauding this move castigated them and called them racists and worse.

Thats because it was racist and worse.

Yeah we may be racists, but at least our cars aren't getting stolen anymore. We went from 1st in the country in stolen cars to 70th!

http://phoenix.about.com/od/cartheft/a/autotheftncib.htm

It was complete coincidence that when all the financially challenged people who willfully disregard American laws left the state that stuff stopped disappearing.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Understandable to me. The states need to respond in some way due to the failure of our federal government.

Yet, when Arizona responded, the same people applauding this move castigated them and called them racists and worse.

Thats because it was racist and worse.

Yeah we may be racists, but at least our cars aren't getting stolen anymore. We went from 1st in the country in stolen cars to 70th!

http://phoenix.about.com/od/cartheft/a/autotheftncib.htm

It was complete coincidence that when all the financially challenged people who willfully disregard American laws left the state that stuff stopped disappearing.

Racist!

 

[Fennis]

oh....and take THAT you immigrants who came here and went through the proper channels and committed to the process of becoming legalized citizens

suckers

Legal immigrants have drivers licenses.

 

[drummer]

Understandable to me. The states need to respond in some way due to the failure of our federal government.

Yet, when Arizona responded, the same people applauding this move castigated them and called them racists and worse.

Thats because it was racist and worse.

Yeah we may be racists, but at least our cars aren't getting stolen anymore. We went from 1st in the country in stolen cars to 70th!

http://phoenix.about.com/od/cartheft/a/autotheftncib.htm

It was complete coincidence that when all the financially challenged people who willfully disregard American laws left the state that stuff stopped disappearing.

Maybe it's because there are no good cars left to steal.

 

[Jewell]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

 

[whoknew]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

So your argument is ... the Founders were racist? And because of that ... what?

 

[drummer]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

So your argument is ... the Founders were racist? And because of that ... what?

Here. Some more lint for you to pick up.

 

[whoknew]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

So your argument is ... the Founders were racist? And because of that ... what?

Here. Some more lint for you to pick up.

I don't understand what your point is. You are saying I'm dumb?

Quite possibly. But in this instance - why specifically?

 

[Jewell]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

So your argument is ... the Founders were racist? And because of that ... what?

My argument is historical accuracy. It's fine for Tim to argue in favor of open border, mass immigration. It's ridiculous, however, for Tim to argue that the Founders intended open border, mass immigration when there's a bevy of evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[ProBowler88]

not surprised, I mean it's California after all...

 

[Pots]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

So your argument is ... the Founders were racist? And because of that ... what?

Here. Some more lint for you to pick up.

I don't understand what your point is. You are saying I'm dumb?

Quite possibly. But in this instance - why specifically?

Because you took a well written and researched rebuttal and tried to spin it into something completely different.

 

[timschochet]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.

This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.

 

[timschochet]

It took me exactly two minutes to find an article from the Huffington Post which completely repudiates Jewell's argument:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bier/founding-fathers-on-immigration_b_1898163.html

America's Founders Supported Immigration

As Americans celebrated the 225th anniversary of the Constitution's signing this Monday, thousands of new citizens at naturalization ceremonies across the country celebrated being Americans for the first time. Naturalization is among the Constitution's greatest contributions to the idea of "America." This simple clause upheld a radical new understanding of citizenship, one that was not to be based on race or birth-it was something you could become.

By guaranteeing a "uniform rule of naturalization," the Constitution presupposes an immigrant nation. In the original conception, the Constitution protected a society of immigrants and citizens living side-by-side. While reserving the right to vote and hold office for citizens, the document protects the rights of "life, liberty, and property" for "any person," not just any citizen.

The Constitution's principal framer, James Madison, argued that the freedoms the Constitution guaranteed actually depended upon this pluralism. "This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades America," he said at the Virginia ratifying convention, "for where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest." Madison repeated this point in Federalist #10: in America, diversity would defend freedom.

Thomas Paine echoed this view in The Rights of Man. "If there is a country in the world where concord... would be least expected, it is America," he wrote. "Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable." But he argued that if the government protects the equal rights of all, "there is nothing to engender riots and tumults," and "all the parts are brought into cordial unison."

The Constitution's 20-year prohibition on any Congressional limitation on immigration reflects the importance they placed on immigrants. The Declaration of Independence had denounced the king for "prevent[ing] the population of these states" by "obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners" and "refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither." In this spirit, states after independence sold land at discounts to those who emigrated from abroad and granted citizenship in as little as two years.

Thomas Jefferson , reflecting the general sentiment, said, "The present desire of America is to produce rapid population by as great importations of foreigners as possible." On this point, Jefferson's archrival, Alexander Hamilton, agreed. "Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious and valuable workmen," he wrote, "who by expatriating from Europe improved their own condition, and added to the industry and wealth of the United States."

The Founders repeatedly emphasized the benefits to the immigrants themselves. In Common Sense, Paine upheld "this new world" as "the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty." Jefferson argued for "a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them." Madison defended immigration on the grounds that it is "always from places where living is more difficult to places where it is less difficult," so "the happiness of the emigrant is promoted by the change."

That the Founders were pro-immigration is often obscured by how dutifully they attended to its difficulties. Jefferson and Franklin discussed at length the political and social costs of immigration, yet nativists throughout history have often repeated their fears while ignoring their conclusions. Even Franklin by far the most vociferous critic of immigrants among the Founders ultimately concluded that "they contribute greatly to the improvement of a Country."

For almost 150 years, America was the most inclusive society the world had ever seen. Restrictions to entry were exceptions to the general rule of openness. Today, exclusion is the rule--inclusion the exception. Although the segregationist mentality is slowly being rejected, much work is left before America represents the Founders' original vision. As Americans reflect on the Constitution's significance this week, they should celebrate its pluralist vision and reject calls for renewed isolation.

 

[whoknew]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

So your argument is ... the Founders were racist? And because of that ... what?

My argument is historical accuracy. It's fine for Tim to argue in favor of open border, mass immigration. It's ridiculous, however, for Tim to argue that the Founders intended open border, mass immigration when there's a bevy of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Right. I guess I was just thinking - so what's the point beyond that? Even if you are correct - how does that correlate to current immigration?

Having said that, tims article even calls into question the validity of your underlying point.

 

[whoknew]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

So your argument is ... the Founders were racist? And because of that ... what?

Here. Some more lint for you to pick up.

I don't understand what your point is. You are saying I'm dumb?

Quite possibly. But in this instance - why specifically?

Because you took a well written and researched rebuttal and tried to spin it into something completely different.

Again - my point was - even if he's correct, so what? Is that the standard by which we should form our current immigration policy? We should tolerate the good immigrants and dismiss the others?

 

[drummer]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.

This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.

The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.

 

[Ghost Rider]

So basically, in Tim's world, entrance into this country should be a free-for-all. exactly as it was before 1925.

Fixed.

Should we also go back to women not being able to vote? And why go back to just the 1920s? Why not just go back to the 1800s and get slavery going again, right? I mean, if we are gonna go back 100+ for immigration, then why not for other things as well?

 

[timschochet]

So basically, in Tim's world, entrance into this country should be a free-for-all. exactly as it was before 1925.

Fixed.

Should we also go back to women not being able to vote? And why go back to just the 1920s? Why not just go back to the 1800s and get slavery going again, right? I mean, if we are gonna go back 100+ for immigration, then why not for other things as well?

Are you actually arguing that open immigration is akin to any of the items you mentioned? We are better off, as a society, with women voting, and without slavery. We are NOT better off since we restricted immigration, IMO.

 

[Jewell]

We should tolerate the good immigrants and dismiss the others?

We should certainly emphasize immigration of good immigrants (read: skilled immigrants) over immigration from those less qualified to positively contribute to America's success. After all, that's what most nations do because that's what's in most nations' best interests.

From CNN:

"The problem, the companies say, is a mismatch between the kind of skilled workers needed and the ranks of the unemployed.

"During the recession, domestic manufacturers appear to have accelerated the long-term move toward greater automation, laying off more of their lowest-skilled workers and replacing them with cheaper labor abroad.

"Now they are looking to hire people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery, follow complex blueprints and demonstrate higher math proficiency than was previously required of the typical assembly line worker." {snip}

Immigrants to Canada and Australia typically arrive with very high skills, including English-language competence. But the United States has taken a different course. Since 2000, the United States has received some 10 million migrants, approximately half of them illegal.

Migrants to the United States arrive with much less formal schooling than migrants to Canada and Australia and very poor English-language skills. More than 80 percent of Hispanic adult migrants to the United States score below what ETS deems a minimum level of literacy necessary for success in the U.S. labor market. {snip}

Just as we made bad decisions about physical capital in the 2000s -- overinvesting in houses, underinvesting in airports, roads, trains, and bridges -- so we also made fateful decisions about our human capital: accepting too many unskilled workers from Latin America, too few highly skilled workers from China and India.

We have been operating a human capital policy for the world of 1910, not 2010.

Skilled immigrant Sahil Mahtani was not granted U.S. citizenship despite receiving graduate degrees from American universities. Writing for The New Republic he too believes that the U.S. should prioritize "good immigrants" over others:

As a result, the preferences that were unveiled in 1965 were diametrically opposed to what the Kennedy administration had imagined, with family reunification at 74 percent, professionals and skilled workers at 20 percent, and refugees at 6 percent. Today, these basic proportions hold, with two-thirds of immigrants arriving because they are related to American citizens, 13 percent from employment (of which a maximum of 10 percent are skilled), 5 percent via the Green Card lottery, and the remainder as refugees.

The history of America's accidental immigration system points to the absence of any kind of long-term strategic planning on the issue. This is not to suggest that America should design its system to only accept skilled migrants. There is a historical obligation to the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses that makes America different from more practical settler countries like Australia or Canada, in which immigration is used foremost as a tool of economic policy and where, at least in Canada, nearly 66 percent of all immigrants are skilled.

But the United States does need to decide what it wants its immigration system to accomplish. As long as it proves incapable of considering its long-term goals, Washington will blunder from one policy event to another in a process of bureaucratic improvisation that fails to serve the country’s interests.

What obligation does the U.S. have to accept all immigrants, anyway? And do all nations have this obligation or does just the United States?

 

[timschochet]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.

This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.

The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.

I disagree with you profoundly. And there is nothing self-serving about my POV. In fact, ever since I have held this POV (roughly for 20 years, since my mid 20s,) it has served me ill, since nearly everyone I know disagrees with me rather strongly, including my closest friends, my family members, and even my wife. Nonetheless, I believe what I believe.

Immigration is, has always been, and will ever be definitional for the United States. Of course all the issues you raise can be a concern, but I am convinced that we would be far worse as a society if we came to reject immigration, including illegal immigration.

 

[timschochet]

We should tolerate the good immigrants and dismiss the others?

We should certainly emphasize immigration of good immigrants (read: skilled immigrants) over immigration from those less qualified to positively contribute to America's success. After all, that's what most nations do because that's what's in most nations' best interests.

From CNN:

"The problem, the companies say, is a mismatch between the kind of skilled workers needed and the ranks of the unemployed.

"During the recession, domestic manufacturers appear to have accelerated the long-term move toward greater automation, laying off more of their lowest-skilled workers and replacing them with cheaper labor abroad.

"Now they are looking to hire people who can operate sophisticated computerized machinery, follow complex blueprints and demonstrate higher math proficiency than was previously required of the typical assembly line worker." {snip}

Immigrants to Canada and Australia typically arrive with very high skills, including English-language competence. But the United States has taken a different course. Since 2000, the United States has received some 10 million migrants, approximately half of them illegal.

Migrants to the United States arrive with much less formal schooling than migrants to Canada and Australia and very poor English-language skills. More than 80 percent of Hispanic adult migrants to the United States score below what ETS deems a minimum level of literacy necessary for success in the U.S. labor market. {snip}

Just as we made bad decisions about physical capital in the 2000s -- overinvesting in houses, underinvesting in airports, roads, trains, and bridges -- so we also made fateful decisions about our human capital: accepting too many unskilled workers from Latin America, too few highly skilled workers from China and India.

We have been operating a human capital policy for the world of 1910, not 2010.

Skilled immigrant Sahil Mahtani was not granted U.S. citizenship despite receiving graduate degrees from American universities. Writing for The New Republic he too believes that the U.S. should prioritize "good immigrants" over others:

As a result, the preferences that were unveiled in 1965 were diametrically opposed to what the Kennedy administration had imagined, with family reunification at 74 percent, professionals and skilled workers at 20 percent, and refugees at 6 percent. Today, these basic proportions hold, with two-thirds of immigrants arriving because they are related to American citizens, 13 percent from employment (of which a maximum of 10 percent are skilled), 5 percent via the Green Card lottery, and the remainder as refugees.

The history of America's accidental immigration system points to the absence of any kind of long-term strategic planning on the issue. This is not to suggest that America should design its system to only accept skilled migrants. There is a historical obligation to the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses that makes America different from more practical settler countries like Australia or Canada, in which immigration is used foremost as a tool of economic policy and where, at least in Canada, nearly 66 percent of all immigrants are skilled.

But the United States does need to decide what it wants its immigration system to accomplish. As long as it proves incapable of considering its long-term goals, Washington will blunder from one policy event to another in a process of bureaucratic improvisation that fails to serve the country’s interests.

What obligation does the U.S. have to accept all immigrants, anyway? And do all nations have this obligation or does just the United States?

The obligation is to ourselves, if we want to retain what has made us exceptional for over 2 centuries.

As for the rest of what you wrote, it's complete and utter crap. Some of the greatest American achievers in our history were either "undesirable" immigrants themselves, or the children of "undesirable" immigrants. There is an ugly and strongly racist component IMO to the whole concept of "desirable" vs. "undesirable".

 

[timschochet]

Such incredible ignorance surrounding this issue. What's truly ironic (and rather laughable) is that I'm the one considered naïve.

 

[Jewell]

There is an ugly and strongly racist component IMO to the whole concept of "desirable" vs. "undesirable".

Only if you make it about race. Whereas everything written above, from David Frum's call for more skilled migrants from China and India, to the Indonesian Mahtani's preference for skilled labor, to two multicultural nations (Canada and Australia) favoring skilled migrants -- shows that the concept of desirable vs. undesirable is skilled vs. unskilled.

 

[Sarnoff]

not surprised, I mean it's California after all...

Exactly. This is probably just a move to bankrupt the state faster so it gets the big federal bailout they've been begging for.

 

[Jewell]

Such incredible ignorance surrounding this issue.

Yeah, because there's absolutely no way for people to disagree on an issue without one of them being a complete ignoramus. Impossible.

** No offense to Ignoramus.

 

[drummer]

In fact, the Founders welcomed immigration, particularly Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders welcomed immigration from the parts of the world from which the immigrants would qualify for citizenship in the United States. The Founders tolerated immigration from other areas because they did not anticipate nor did they receive many immigrants from other parts of the world. If the Founders "welcomed" that immigration, then they would have provided a means by which those immigrants could become citizens.

Even regarding immigrants from Europe, Thomas Jefferson was wary of the negative effects of mass immigration.

So, being that: (1) the Founders didn't anticipate mass world immigration due to transportation limits of the time; (2) the Founders limited which immigrants could become citizens thus expressing their intent of which immigrants they desired; and (3) some Founders, such as Jefferson, expressed reservation regarding unfettered mass immigration -- then it's safe to assume that the Founders would not support the open door mass immigration that you're suggesting they would.

That's your interpretation. Several years ago, Tibor Machan of Reason magazine wrote a very long and conclusive article about how the Founding Fathers were, in fact, very much in support of mass immigration- he was arguing at the time for open borders. Wish I could find that article now and link it- it was from the 1980s, but it had a profound effect on me.

This is one of those issues in which people on different sides are always going to dispute what the Founders were thinking (like secularism vs. religion, to cite a more common example.) But I very FIRMLY believe that the whole point of the USA, the one aspect which makes us an exceptional nation, is our acceptance of immigration.

The US has been doing a good job with immigration. I know a few Irish and Italian immigrants who received Green Cards (do you remember Green Cards? - Roberto Plant), the Irish through an act in the either the late 1980's or 1990's (dunno exactly when). Immigrants aren't being shut out. Where the US has failed on immigration lies within the lack of enforcement due to the supply and demand of labor. Even then, it's not like those who are taking advantage of the US turning a blind eye to it are doing immigrants favors. You still have sweatshops, poor living conditions, exploitation, crime, and a living standard well below US norm.

Your crusade is self serving, and naive. It's more of a "LOOK AT MY SO CALLED LIBERTARIAN POV" rather than actually focusing at the realities of the immigrants themselves. The US is already burdened policing the globe. It will be even under more burden with they playing "Promised Land". The US government can't even live up to promises to it's natural citizens. They already have enough immigrants here anyway. No need to import any more. The only real need for them is to fill jobs, and those jobs should be filled by Americans. But guess what? Immigration screwed that one up too.

BTW, two of the Irish I know who got the Green Cards:

One got addicted to crack cocaine and meth trolling the Tenderloin in SF, and moved back to Ireland.

The other got addicted to same drugs, but stayed in SF, while living off of SSI and other government stipends because he was diagnosed as bi-polar or clinically insane. He even got free housing.

Kind of a waste of Green Cards.

I disagree with you profoundly. And there is nothing self-serving about my POV. In fact, ever since I have held this POV (roughly for 20 years, since my mid 20s,) it has served me ill, since nearly everyone I know disagrees with me rather strongly, including my closest friends, my family members, and even my wife. Nonetheless, I believe what I believe.

Immigration is, has always been, and will ever be definitional for the United States. Of course all the issues you raise can be a concern, but I am convinced that we would be far worse as a society if we came to reject immigration, including illegal immigration.

All the "I"s in you post just proved my point. I'm focusing about the immigrants and the US, and how you fail to recognize them

There is no "can be a concern". My nice tony little town that has it's own Rodeo Blvd shopping corridor. But if I drive further south, I can find immigrants living in squalid conditions. One make shift trailer park that "housed" immigrants was something right out of the Third World. A family member of mine volunteered to help distribute food and clothing to them, and was shocked and depressed that people could live like that right here in this wealthy area of California. The park had no safe running water, no sewage system, no safe power solutions, and it took months for the local authorities to shut it down and find those immigrant families (with children no less) housing. It's still not completed, and it's been two years since they started. That park was housing them for years prior to it. The slumlord who took their money thought he was doing those people a favor too.

All that costs money. Those immigrants, despite living in the US didn't have enough to move elsewhere. So the money comes from somewhere else. Not from the slumlord.

You can find this example anywhere, in the Chinatown district in SF, in Los Angeles, San Diego, pretty much anywhere where there is a concentration of immigrants. You would think that after all these years of immigration that this would never happen, but it always will. Because it's the effect of importing poverty. It takes generations for those with no education and skills to overcome it. A lot of them do, but a lot of them don't. Some find it easier to make the quick buck via crime. Some think that the lawlessness of the country they come from exists here. All of the sudden they find out "Hey, we can't kidnap this girls Uncle via gunpoint to find out where she is, because now we are in jail" (true story that happened to a son of a Guatemalan immigrant I know, which his buddy that got him into this mess still thinks he did nothing wrong, and that Uncle was Guatemalan).

Let's not forget the issue of immigrants imported into slave trades that exist in the US too. Maybe next time you go for a Happy Ending, you can wonder when her Happy Ending, well, will happen.

If we can't fix the problems immigrants have in the US today, then we can't import more of those problems. Nevermind that the US should focus more on it's natural citizens. Every natural American should be granted opportunity first, and second, and if they don't take it, open a guest worker registration program that has rigid policy and regulation, so that those who apply won't end up in squalid conditions with no proper food, shelter, and health care. Three things that a lot of natural American citizens still don't have.

 

[drummer]

not surprised, I mean it's California after all...

Exactly. This is probably just a move to bankrupt the state faster so it gets the big federal bailout they've been begging for.

Actually, I think the state has a surplus now, but thanks for contributing.

 

[drummer]

Such incredible ignorance surrounding this issue. What's truly ironic (and rather laughable) is that I'm the one considered naïve.

Because immigration, in your mind, is about you.

 

[timschochet]

not surprised, I mean it's California after all...

Exactly. This is probably just a move to bankrupt the state faster so it gets the big federal bailout they've been begging for.

If anything, this move will create new revenue for the state, especially for the DMV.

 

[timschochet]

Such incredible ignorance surrounding this issue. What's truly ironic (and rather laughable) is that I'm the one considered naïve.

Because immigration, in your mind, is about you.

It really isn't.

And all the concerns you stated have occurred with every set of immigrants. Read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. Read the writings of Jacob Riis. Doesn't change a damn thing. As bad as things were, it got better for them, and then for their children.

 

[timschochet]

Such incredible ignorance surrounding this issue.

Yeah, because there's absolutely no way for people to disagree on an issue without one of them being a complete ignoramus. Impossible.

** No offense to Ignoramus.

You're not one of the people I was referring to. Both you and Drummer are very intelligent guys, and I take your objections seriously, even if I disagree. I didn't appreciate your tone suggesting I knew much less than you do about the Founding Fathers. I didn't write what I did out of ignorance, as hopefully the article I posted demonstrates. That doesn't make what you wrote wrong; it means we have a difference of interpretation, which is exactly what I wrote.

My comments about ignorance were in response to some of the other posts in this thread.