Most of Those Anti-Immigrant Memes Are Just Wrong
From this great article, here are two
1. Immigrants aren't here for the welfare, they are here to work
2. Immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes than similar native-born folks
Dispatches from District 48
From this great article, here are two
1. Immigrants aren't here for the welfare, they are here to work
2. Immigrants are much less likely to commit crimes than similar native-born folks
I don't need to defend the status quo. People can't freely move to any country they want to.
You do need to defend the status quo in a debate where we're discussing the larger "why" questions of immigration policy.
I don't need you to tell me what the law is. I thought we were talking about why the law should be what it is.
Nonsense. You want to change things, the burden is on you to explain why it's good.
An oft-quoted statistic is that 95% of outstanding murder warrants in LA County are for illegal immigrants. As long as you turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, you have no hope of getting a handle on that problem.
That's not how morals work. The person advocating using force against people who aren't harming others needs to defend his position. Also, you should always be willing to defend your position on something. The fact that you're currently getting your way doesn't insulate you from morality.
If we lived in pre-Civil War America, do you think the moral burden to explain himself only rests on the man who thinks slaves should be free? I think the man enslaving people, despite having the law on his side, has the greater burden, as he's the one using force on peaceful people.
There's a really simple solution to that, if it's even true.
The reason they're hard to find is because they're underground. They're underground because they're illegally here. People who face deportation don't usually live above board.
If you want to find people, then you need to give them some legal identity. That's how the police find legal residents and citizens for whom there are warrants.
You make people invisible through the law and then act surprised when they are invisible.
The only people being "harmed" you're talking about are those who are breaking the law by coming to the US illegally. Let them stay in their home countries and they're not being harmed at all. Meanwhile, lots of poor Black people--actual citizens--are having their jobs undercut by the illegal immigrants you so badly want here.
You're not worth discussing this with any further.
You don't deserve to be harmed because you break an unjust law, though. And that's what I am asking you to defend - not the existence of the law, but the justice of the law.
Slavery was an unjust law. Slaves who escaped and the people who helped them escape weren't doing anything wrong, but they were breaking the law.
Simply saying that you can avoid getting hurt if you just comply is ridiculous. You're right: people are free to comply with injustice and if they don't, then I guess they deserve whatever they get.
I don't support protectionism. You don't own your job. Your employer doesn't own you. You don't deserve to be protected from competition. And if you did, why would I just protect you from foreigners? Why not protect you from other citizens? This doesn't even make sense.
I'm not sure why you're taking your ball and going home. Are you so intolerant that you can't bear to talk with someone who doesn't agree with you? I haven't been insulting or even rude, so this seems like an overreaction. You could've just said "I don't want to discuss this anymore," but you had to tell me that I am not worth it, like I've done something wrong. But I haven't. I am challenging you; you're challenging me. There's no need to get so hurt about it.
Anti-Illegal-Immigration is not the same as Anti-Immigration. BIG difference.
So you are to have me believe that you can actually just move to (Canada, Australia, Switzerland, and Argentina), unpack your bags, start your life and have zero worry of deportation?
I mean, that's what I specifically talk about, unless you're only focusing on the "less bigoted" phrase, which is terribly subjective, but I did qualify my meaning of that with, "I.e., you can just walk across their border,...". So it's clear what I was asking about, and you read it that way. You are either choosing to ignore that one very important part, of you're obtuse. PLEASE CLARIFY which, so I know what you were trying to answer.
Not to digress too much, but I saw your claim and the first thing that looks dubious is there being a higher %-age of foreign born Argentinians - that's false, as it's around 4%.
But anyway, to your other points:
You say I live in a bubble - baloney. I recognize that in those countries you mention, there I am a big fan of free trade, and that means I want labor to flow to where it's most needed, and I want production to be done in the most cost effective way to satisfy the demands of consumers. I view consumer sovereignty as a NORMATIVE principle, and I view borders as arbitrary lines at their core nature. So don't bother me with your attempt at making a libertarian case - I'm already there.
Here's an issue: we have free stuff for immigrants here. I am required to give a part of my earnings, profits, etc, to every level of government, as Americans feel they collectively have a claim on all exchanges of goods and services. As long as immigration trends the people who are going to be net recipients of government distributions, this is economically bad for me.
My dream: Virtually no government, particularly in redistributional ("safety net") terms. Then, free immigration all around. If that dream makes me a xenophobe, so be it.
However, the sticking point is "virtually no government." Nobody wants this, especially the non-libertarian subset of pro-free-immigration people (and non-libertarian is the vast majority of that group). So that's out, and being a net donator to wealth redistribution, I want undocumented immigration stopped because it increases the demographic of net recipients of government money.
So I'd love easy immigration laws, but I'd like it to be such that immigrants are on the same hook for for the same laws as me, so I'd like to also stop the flow of illegal as a package deal (comprehensive reform). But you know as well as I do that comprehensive reform will only ever address the easing of draconian laws and it will NOT address the problem of illegal flow. The government NEVER feels compelled to follow such rules, who's going to make them? So if we built a wall, this would resolve much of that problem, in my and many others' opinions.
There's one other aspect of immigration that makes me uncomfortable - the prospect of a huge shift in demographics serves as a long-term potential for a change in the political economy of the country. I worry about a trend towards socialism, and if in 20 years the country is heavily socialist, what can I do? Emmigrate? I'm guessing the expatriation tax will be alive and well and will make sure I can't just leave without checking my wealth at the door.
Before I'm done, another point you made:
"I don't really understand your argument that we can't be xenophobes because than other countries must have xenophobes."
WHAT? How did I say "we can't be xenophobes because other countries must have xenophobes?" If you re-read what I said, I was saying that anyone who wants border security and enforcement of immigration law is called a xenophobe. Are you saying that anyone who wants immigration laws AT ALL are xenophobes? If that's your statement, then I guess you're at least making your point, but the majority of the "bigot" / "xenophobe" name calling doesn't come from the same stance - it's a blatant way to conflate those terms with a desire for limiting immigration to be through legal channels (bad as those channels may currently be).
I didn't say anything like that. This is the strawman of the century. I said it's easier to immigrate there. Which is true.
Right, you said two things. One about being less bigoted and one about 'free.' While no country has completely open borders, it's much easier to immigrate to many other countries than the US. As far as bigoted, some countries are far more bigoted and some less.
I can see why you're confused about my wording, but I made two points: easier to immigrate + higher percentage of foreign born. I didn't mean both were true of every country on my list. Argentina has the closest immigration policy to open borders. I wasn't suggesting they have the highest percentage of foreign born. I put it on the list because of its liberal immigration policy.
Sweet. But you still seem to have an overly flattering view of American immigration policy.
Welfare reform in the 1990s prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving most forms of federal welfare. Legal immigrants are blocked for 5 years. So, legal immigrants are technically worse here.
Even if this were true, which it's not, the obvious solution would be to just legalize their immigration. As a libertarian minded person, you understand better than most how black markets work. When you have a vibrant black market, you can do one of two things: double down on the regulations and enforcement or create the law that better aligns with the reality. As long as there's a demand for their labor, the government will always be playing a catch-up game.
I share your concerns about welfare and public services generally, but I am actually much more concerned about citizens than immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. The biggest federal programs bankrupting the American taxpayer are Social Security, Medicare, and defense. Immigrants, even illegal immigrants, subsidize the first two. Illegal immigrants by and large can't collect from them. Medicaid is dwarfed by all of these monsters. So, if like me you want the government to spend less, then the focus should be on these three first. They're also the most "entrenched" in the American electorate. If you even talk about reforming or removing them, people freak. out., whereas Americans are much more skeptical and even disdainful of programs that go to poor people and poor immigrants.
I don't think the federal government should be in the business of engineering the population with infringements on free association rights, but sure, that's worrisome; however, of some comfort should be the fact that 1) immigrants do politically assimilate, but most Americans aren't libertarian, so they're assimilating to a mean that isn't libertarian and 2) immigrants who naturalize have low voter turnout compared to natives. I'm actually more worried about elderly voters who love big government programs and turn out to vote all the time.
You misunderstand me. I'm saying "they do it, too" is not a defense and is not proof that you aren't xenophobic. It's an attempt to justify an opinion by normalizing an opinion, to show that it's common. But common =/= not xenophobic.
I've already defined xenophobe. It's thinking the rights of foreigners are less important than the rights of citizens. If you aren't willing to exile Americans on welfare or Americans who vote badly, but you are willing to do that to foreigners, then you are fundamentally saying you respect the rights of Americans over the rights of foreigners. There's really no other way to frame that. Americans can be welfare leeches and socialists, but these characteristics in foreigners are so severe that they warrant trampling on their free association rights. Americans can stay and stink up the joint and travel freely within the country just by virtue of the fact that they happened to be born on the right side of a line.