Actually, yes. Here is the fairly silly person actually proposing it. What a nutter, eh?
Yes, that's what a lot of immigration restriction advocates fail to realise. If unrestricted immigration causes such great problems, the same problems should arise when people are moving between states, provinces or even cities. Still they don't seem to dispute the right of people to move within their own country to find work elsewhere.
Also, the most serious problems associated with illegal immigration are suffered by the illegal immigrants themselves. Because of their illegal status they don't enjoy the same legal/labour/property protections as citizens do.
I don't know what you mean with 'time sense' or 'wealth/resources situation'.
Actually I don't. Please explain.
Mexicans living in Mexico are not illegals. If you mean that the Mexican government should pay for people in the USA, then that raises several questions:
Essentially. They displace legal workers who go on public assistance until the economy can afford their labor. About ten percent unemployment here.
I'd agree with that, but that's a legal process.
Because this exists within the legal framework that all states share. If Mexico became a state within the United States tens of millions would rush north for a better life (poor mexicans) and tens of millions would rush south for a better life (poor retirees).
Except in this case, a simple enforced law, say $10,000 fine first offense, ten years second offense, and three strikes your out would fix the situation quickly. No need to worry about the illegals.
A good question to ask is why do so illegally? If these companies, employers, corporations have access to congressmen through their campaign contributions, then why don't they lobby congress for an expanded foreign worker program?
If immigration is unrestricted they would not be illegal tresspassers and they would be bound by the same international laws no matter where they go.
I believe so. All that's needed is a mechanism that registers you with the government, a few language skills, a bit about rights and responsibilities, and you're free to go. Heck, given them the right to vote as well...
Yes. The illegal employer exploits rather than helps. Force the bad actors out and legal employers will lobby congress for a more rational immigration policy. It's the lawlessness that destroys the free market in labor.
I find that it is a legitimate goal, as the benefits outweight the downs.
Ther are several large differences between those situations. The biggest one is that most illegal immigrants don't have the same values, language, culture.
No, they don't. By "keeping the bad ones out of the country" the disadvantages will not outweigh the benefits. You just pass them on to someone else.
Nations are not necessarily homogenous in these things. I don't have the same values as people in Staphorst. Should there be a law preventing everyone outside Staphorst from moving there? Someone who lives in Antwerpen does not have the same language as Liege. Does that mean movement of people into Liege should be severely restricted? If people want to live there, they can learn that language, can't they? African Americans and white Americans don't have the same culture, but does that mean white people should not be entirely free to live in Harlem if they wanted to?
Why would they move to systems that can't support them? I think the opposite is more likely: people will try to find out which systems can support them, for example by moving to a place where there is a job shortage in their area of expertise to apply for a job there. Just like many people are now moving to other cities if there is a job for them available.
And? I am going to think of my country first. And preventing those bad ones form entering will force the systems that produced them to deal with them.
A bible belt American and an American from Harlem will still have more in common with eachother than a Chinese peasant. Lets not lose sight of the scale.
Why are you making the bad assumption that most people will make intelligent choices?
They don't have to make intelligent choices.
A part will.
That's very nationalist of you.
If that's true, and I don't think that it is, then it will mean that countries less able to deal with them will be forced to deal with them, because countries better able to deal with them refuse to.
Explain why you think that's true. If the Chinese peasant moves to America and learns the language, wouldn't he soon have much in common with both?
I don't make that assumption. I just make the assumption that people will generally move to places they consider attractive and I assume that systems that can support them are attractive.
I don't see the problem in that. Maybe when nations lose inhabitants because they don't offer free healthcare they are encouraged to provide it, although I am fairly skeptical that healthcare is such an important consideration for immigrants. There is not that much immigration from the United States to Canada.
Thank you.
You do you think that they are less able to deal with them?
Growing up under the same flag/general culture does that you know. There is more to a people than its language.
Your assumption doesn't fit reality. Many of these immigrants (especially the illegal ones) decide to move to a country on basis on a rumor or less.
Well see.
There is this thing called nationalistic pride you know. Most Amerikans think that they are the best, so why more to another country?
Originally Posted by 69dodge:
So it isn't clear, at least not to me, what the overall effect is.
A good question to ask is why do so illegally? If these companies, employers, corporations have access to congressmen through their campaign contributions, then why don't they lobby congress for an expanded foreign worker program?
