If East Germany Could Secure Their Border So Can America

[Galteeth]

No it doesn't reinforce your point.

These people are exploited because of their illegal status. They work longer hours in terrible coniditions.

By the time you factor in the cost of clothing and various other necessary requirements, there's not much (if any) change from £50 a week. Remember, this is the same amount as being on basic state benefits in Britain. You can survive on it, barely.

Sending money home isn't an option when you're dealing with such small amounts.

These people came to Britain for a better life and in turn have ended up stuck in a situation they have no hope of escaping. Most that are ferried in illegaly are in debt to those who brought them here by thousands of pounds and have to work to pay it off.

I never claimed they weren't being exploited. Where do these immigrants to Britian come from?

 

[Jasongreat]

While I agree theat there are many practical problems from illegal immigration, I am with a few others here who say that in general it gives rise to a lot of flag-waving and ethnocenrism/xenophobia.
Something I have always felt - that being bonded to or being loyal to an artificially bounded piece of land because you or your parents/grandparents happened to be born there is just silly. Patriotism is as irrational a religion as Christianity or Islam or Hinduism.

One of the reasons I refused to move to the US ages back when most of my colleagues/friends/peers were doing so, I hated the smugness of some Americans who think they are doing a big favour to the immigrants.
The US has, and always will continue to benefit from immigrants, but obviously the more elite and higher educated ones. There's no charity there, let's be very clear about that.

You hate the smugness of some americans? Your post seems very smug to me. You also said you think patriotism is irrational, then post:

What was that about the quality of work from India ?

Not sure if you have read this recent Economist article.
http://www.economist.com/node/17147648

Yes, we were once cheap labour, but that's changing rapidly.

Seems pretty irrational.

Americans don't have problems with immigrants, we all have immigration in our past, even the native americans emmigrated here. Some of us do have a problem with illegal immigration though, and for good reason, its illegal!

As to the article you provided, good for india, but don't sound the trumpets just yet, you still have plenty of problems in your own country to deal with.

 

[JaredJames]

I never claimed they weren't being exploited. Where do these immigrants to Britian come from?

Eastern Europe (non-EU states) and the middle east. A lot of Afghanistan and Iraqi people try to get in via lorries from Callais to Dover.

I wasn't disagreeing with British money being worth more back home, I was simply trying to make the point that they aren't necessarily sending money back home so the whole "coming here to send money back home to help their families" doesn't always hold. (Even if it was their intention.)

 

[Siv]

Americans don't have problems with immigrants, we all have immigration in our past, even the native americans emmigrated here. Some of us do have a problem with illegal immigration though, and for good reason, its illegal!

Laws are made by human beings and are not always perfect. Let's not make them sacred.

As to the article you provided, good for india, but don't sound the trumpets just yet, you still have plenty of problems in your own country to deal with.

I would be the last to do that. We have tons of issues, yes.

But so do you

 

[CAC1001]

1. The problem has gotten worse since NAFTA.

Doesn't mean that's NAFTA's fault.

4. Yes, but the total imports exceed the exports.

That's not a problem.

BTW, when you click the "Quote" button and get the person's post you're responding to, you can then write "quote" and "/quote" brackets around each portion of that person's post you are responding to.

 

[mheslep]

I was referring to the moral basis; obviously I understand the legal basis. The distinction is not arbitrary. One is private space, the other is public.

Can you see the circular aspect of that definition? One should not invade my private space because it is private. According to who? My home is shared with other family members and frequent guests but no more. I share my place of business with colleagues, occasional clients but no more. I share my country with all the other citizens and legal residents but no more.

These distinctions are the creation of human values, and I anticipate you will say so are nation states. When I refer to rights, i am obviously talking about my own moral views, not the laws of the US.

I'd say the distinctions you draw about private and public space are your assertions, not those of all humanity, at least not mine. That is, I'd commonly call the street public space too, but that definition of public does not include criminals.

The basis for private space is human conception of ownership of place. You can say the people of the US own their country. But the point is that the determination of who is a person of the United states is arbitrary. It is about location of birth.

There are a clear and rigorous set of rules in place for determining who resides legally in the US. Clearly for the millions of naturalized US citizens citizenship is about more than place of birth.

 

[Siv]

There are a clear and rigorous set of rules in place for determining who resides legally in the US. Clearly for the millions of naturalized US citizens citizenship is about more than place of birth.

It definitely is.
And it comes naturally to us, associating with a particular group and thinking that group is superior to all others because we are in it.

But, if you really dig deep, its really just an irrational feeling, something which probably helped in our evolution but can be a terrible baggage now.

If you go far enough back, we all should consider a small piece of land in the African grasslands as our "motherland" and be willing to die for that piece of land.

Practical aspects matter of course. You pay taxes to a particular government and so that government (supposedly) provides you with some basic services and infrastructure and all that sort of thing. But with most people, its much more than that. Patriotism makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and makes them do silly things. Which can be terrible sometimes. Like shooting illegal immigrants.

 

[Jasongreat]

Laws are made by human beings and are not always perfect. Let's not make them sacred.

:

What kind of world would it be if everyone just chose which laws they had to follow and which ones they didnt. Would Mexicans feel the same way if 10-40 million americans went across their border, and went about turning their country into ours? How do they treat illegal immigrants that come from other countries? It sure isn't the same way they want to be treated here.

I could easily say it is my best interest, and that I am only trying to make my life better, to come to your house and make you feed me because my house has no food in the fridge. I think most rational people would say that was wrong, then I guess some would say that the law that says I couldn't do that, was just a man made law and not sacred, and therefore what I did was right. But I bet you would feel differently if it was your house, and your food. Now if you invited me, wouldn't that make it different? Which is why there is a difference between illegal immigration and immigration, one has been invited, the other hasnt.

Or I could say that my house has no food in the fridge, and I could go about doing what I could, under the law, to change that fact.

That is the problem I have with illegals, they need to fix their own damn country, don't come here because your country sucks, unless you want to assimilate to our culture(which includes following the law, which means coming here legally), because that is what has made our country great, law and order.

 

[CRGreathouse]

How do[es Mexico] treat illegal immigrants that come from other countries?

Poorly.

That is the problem I have with illegals, they need to fix their own damn country, don't come here because your country sucks, unless you want to assimilate to our culture(which includes following the law, which means coming here legally), because that is what has made our country great, law and order.

You left out the part about how badly America needs the Mexican labor.

 

[CAC1001]

But with most people, its much more than that. Patriotism makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and makes them do silly things. Which can be terrible sometimes. Like shooting illegal immigrants.

Patriotism doesn't lead people to shoot illegal immigrants. That I'd more associate with nationalism. Many people confuse nationalism with patriotism, but the two are separate. Nationalism is a collective movement, it is based on groupthink. People get caught up in it, the fervor, the emotion, etc...it is a form of collective mania. Other forms of collective manias can be for example stock market bubbles and market crashes, manias over celebrities, even politicians (I'd say Barack Obama had a form of a mania around him during the '08 election).

Patriotism, on the other hand, is an individual type of thing. Patriotism isn't a collective emotional wave you get caught up in, it can mean going against the collective wave, many Democrats even epitomized this during the Bush years over the Iraq War when they said, "Dissent is a high form of patriotism." Patriotism oftentimes requires sacrifice as well.

 

[skeptic2]

Would Mexicans feel the same way if 10-40 million americans went across their border, and went about turning their country into ours?

That's exactly how they do feel over the annexation of Texas in 1845.

 

[mheslep]

It definitely is.
And it comes naturally to us, associating with a particular group and thinking that group is superior to all others because we are in it.

But, if you really dig deep, its really just an irrational feeling, something which probably helped in our evolution but can be a terrible baggage now.

If you go far enough back, we all should consider a small piece of land in the African grasslands as our "motherland" and be willing to die for that piece of land.

Practical aspects matter of course. You pay taxes to a particular government and so that government (supposedly) provides you with some basic services and infrastructure and all that sort of thing. But with most people, its much more than that. Patriotism makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and makes them do silly things. Which can be terrible sometimes. Like shooting illegal immigrants.

Consider that your post may be just a collection of feelings (baseless assumptions, hyperbole, condescension) absent any logical argument before getting overly caught up in the condemnation of group associations as irrational.

 

[mheslep]

That's exactly how they do feel over the annexation of Texas in 1845.

How do you know how 'they' feel? Can you also speak for the Aztecs?

 

[skeptic2]

I am married to a Mexican and have Mexican inlaws. I also worked for five years in Mexico. I am fluent in Spanish and watch Mexican television and read Mexican newspapers. Five of my relatives are or were teachers in Mexican schools.

Before Ernesto Zedillo's presidency, the schools taught that the U.S. invaded Mexico and took Texas away from Mexico by force and under duress. Zedillo, who had been secretary of education before becoming president, moderated the tone of the textbooks presumably to make NAFTA more palatable to the Mexicans.

No I can't speak for the Aztecs.

 

[Siv]

What kind of world would it be if everyone just chose which laws they had to follow and which ones they didnt. Would Mexicans feel the same way if 10-40 million americans went across their border, and went about turning their country into ours? How do they treat illegal immigrants that come from other countries? It sure isn't the same way they want to be treated here.

I could easily say it is my best interest, and that I am only trying to make my life better, to come to your house and make you feed me because my house has no food in the fridge. I think most rational people would say that was wrong, then I guess some would say that the law that says I couldn't do that, was just a man made law and not sacred, and therefore what I did was right. But I bet you would feel differently if it was your house, and your food. Now if you invited me, wouldn't that make it different? Which is why there is a difference between illegal immigration and immigration, one has been invited, the other hasnt.

This is called the slippery slope logical fallacy.
My point in saying that laws are not sacrosanct was saying that they can and should be changed based on objective considerations. Not that everyone should break the law. If laws are set in stone, that's not civilization, that's a religion.

That is the problem I have with illegals, they need to fix their own damn country, don't come here because your country sucks, unless you want to assimilate to our culture(which includes following the law, which means coming here legally), because that is what has made our country great, law and order.

Here it is again. The "my country is greater than your country because its mine" religion. Whats so different between this and claiming "my god is better because he is my god".

National boundaries may serve some practical benefits, but let's not be making them into a religion.

 

[Siv]

Patriotism doesn't lead people to shoot illegal immigrants. That I'd more associate with nationalism. Many people confuse nationalism with patriotism, but the two are separate. Nationalism is a collective movement, it is based on groupthink. People get caught up in it, the fervor, the emotion, etc...it is a form of collective mania. Other forms of collective manias can be for example stock market bubbles and market crashes, manias over celebrities, even politicians (I'd say Barack Obama had a form of a mania around him during the '08 election).

Patriotism, on the other hand, is an individual type of thing. Patriotism isn't a collective emotional wave you get caught up in, it can mean going against the collective wave, many Democrats even epitomized this during the Bush years over the Iraq War when they said, "Dissent is a high form of patriotism." Patriotism oftentimes requires sacrifice as well.

Ok, so what's the rationale behind this not-collective sense of feeling that your own country is the best ? You would feel differently if your grandparents had been born a few hundred kilometers north/south/east/west.

Consider that your post may be just a collection of feelings (baseless assumptions, hyperbole, condescension) absent any logical argument before getting overly caught up in the condemnation of group associations as irrational.

So tell me, what's so rational about group associations ?
It comes naturally to us, because we evolved to associate with a particular tribe and had a deep rooted distrust/resentment towards other groups. Studies show that even small children are capable of it. But if you ask me, this is not such a harmless or mild thing. This sows the seed for lots of horrible things.

 

[CAC1001]

Ok, so what's the rationale behind this not-collective sense of feeling that your own country is the best ? You would feel differently if your grandparents had been born a few hundred kilometers north/south/east/west.

What makes you think patriotism is thinking one's country is "the best?" Patriotism is having a deep pride for one's nation, culture, country, etc..whatever. We find it intranationally as well. Texans are very proud to be from Texas, Californians are very proud to be from California, New Yorkers are proud to be from New York, etc...then you get even more localized, with city pride.

Also East Coast versus West Coast, North versus South, etc...being patriotic does not mean one thinks their country/culture is per se "the best."

That's one thing that bugs me with many of the elitist types who say, "Patriotism is beneath me, I am a 'global citizen,'" as if being patriotic and having deep pride in one's nation prevents one from being a worldly citizen.

Blindly thinking one's country is the best and that's that and everyone else is beneath them is more a nationalistic type of mindset IMO.

 

[Char. Limit]

As an example of how patriotism is not limited to country, I feel that people from Eastern Washington are superior to people from Western Washington. As it happens, I live in Eastern Washington.

 

[Phrak]

You left out the part about how badly America needs the Mexican labor.

I don't need Mexican labor. I'm not an employer. You?

I lock my doors at times to deter unwelcome visitors. Do you?

 

[Galteeth]

What kind of world would it be if everyone just chose which laws they had to follow and which ones they didnt. .

Probably a lot like the one we have now.

 

[Siv]

What makes you think patriotism is thinking one's country is "the best?" Patriotism is having a deep pride for one's nation, culture, country, etc..whatever.

But what's the rationale behind this deep pride ?
The fact that your parents/grandparents/great grandparents happened to be born where they were and not a few hundred kms north/south/east/west ?

Now suppose I was born Indian but I move to Singapore, and, after 5 years, become a Singapore citizen. I should feel this deep pride for Singapore or India ? Or both ? What would the basis be for either of these choices ?!

 

[Siv]

As an example of how patriotism is not limited to country, I feel that people from Eastern Washington are superior to people from Western Washington. As it happens, I live in Eastern Washington.

Actually, I think that all the people living in <my address> are superior.
No, not superior. I have deep pride for all those living in <my address>.

 

[xxChrisxx]

The UK can't stop illegals and we have at minimum 23 miles of sea between us and foreign land. You lot have no chance.

It's also rather myopic to think that a great big wall will stop people crossing the boarder. All it does is force those who are going to cross to be more sneaky and therefore become more organised. You also massively encourage people traffiking. There is a demand for people to cross the boarder. Where there is demand, there is supply, this supply is generally run by people with low moral fibre.

So unless you are going to turn it into 'FORTRESS AMERICA' and run something as ruthless as a Soviet era boarder, you'll never stop illegals.

 

[mheslep]

The UK can't stop illegals and we have at minimum 23 miles of sea between us and foreign land. You lot have no chance.

It's also rather myopic to think that a great big wall will stop people crossing the boarder. All it does is force those who are going to cross to be more sneaky and therefore become more organised. You also massively encourage people traffiking. There is a demand for people to cross the boarder. Where there is demand, there is supply, this supply is generally run by people with low moral fibre.

So unless you are going to turn it into 'FORTRESS AMERICA' and run something as ruthless as a Soviet era boarder, you'll never stop illegals.

The goal is not to stop all illegals, the goal is to reduce the flow to the point where immigration is manageable by law and integration with existing society/culture is possible; yes there is a very good chance decent border security can do just that; no I don't want a Fortress America and I doubt very few Americans do either. Where do you get these conceptions? The Guardian?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2943534&postcount=35

 

[Char. Limit]

That's exactly how they do feel over the annexation of Texas in 1845.

I missed this earlier, but I'd say the same thing to these people that I say to people who still complain about the American Civil War.

That was over 150 years ago. Get over it.

 

[CAC1001]

I missed this earlier, but I'd say the same thing to these people that I say to people who still complain about the American Civil War.

That was over 150 years ago. Get over it.

You mean the Waw of Nawthern Aggression

 

[CAC1001]

But what's the rationale behind this deep pride ?
The fact that your parents/grandparents/great grandparents happened to be born where they were and not a few hundred kms north/south/east/west ?

I don't know if there is necessarilly a "rationale" to it, that's just how humans are. Irish are proud, English are proud, Scottish are proud, Italians are proud, Germans are proud, Greeks are proud, etc...

Now suppose I was born Indian but I move to Singapore, and, after 5 years, become a Singapore citizen. I should feel this deep pride for Singapore or India ? Or both ? What would the basis be for either of these choices ?!

You would probably feel pride for your new country, but you'd also still feel pride for India too.

 

[WhoWee]

Post again after we send 5 million illegal aliens and their families to Maine. :tongue2:

:rofl:

 

[WhoWee]

A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation.

 

[Galteeth]

A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation.

Are you seriously?

 

[Char. Limit]

Are you seriously?

Proper adjective-adverb use, but that's beside the point.

What WhoWee suggests is radical, yes. But when people scream at even what I'd consider moderate solutions, like Arizona's recent law, well...

I'm not sure where I want to go from that. I'll let you decide.

 

[skeptic2]

A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation.

May I assume that you admire the East Germans for their solution to their emigration problem?

 

[WhoWee]

Wow! Please keep my post in context.

Specifically, "A completed fence and a shoot first and ask questions later approach might be feasible as part of a serious immigration reform package - it MIGHT just force the politicians to think about the unintended consequences of their legislation. "

My point is this, we have a serious problem with illegal immigration, smuggling/trafficking, and(possibly) terrorist activites (?). It has become a political issue, costs are enormous, and nobody seems to have a comprehensive solution.

It seems to me the politicians are leaning towards "comprehensive immigration reform". However, experience tells me (think "health care reform") that the politicians will seek a solution that guarantees their own political objective (such as being re-elected) rather than the best solution for the problem, the people and our country.

Hence, I propose that once an immigration reform package is put into place (whether 30 million are granted amnesty or everyone is deported and forced to become a citizen in a traditional way, that afterward the new policy is enforced without exception.

Quite frankly, if it's easy to cross the border to work or become a citizen legally, then it coould be assumed that people sneaking across at that point would be doing something that is illegal.

Am I seriously saying to shoot first and ask questions later in this context? Yes, sure, absolutely, and why not - if there's no reason to sneak across except to smuggle drugs (or worse) - then shoot to kill.

Legislative actions have consequences - it's time for the politicians to stop playing games and take responsibility for their work.

 

[Galteeth]

- if there's no reason to sneak across except to smuggle drugs (or worse) - then shoot to kill.

Except there obviously is.

And I don't think smuggling drugs, or the suspicion there of, is deserving of death.

 

[NobodySpecial]

You mean the Waw of Nawthern Aggression

Operation enduring banjo ?