Let's Talk About the Boarder and Immigration

Akita Suggagaki said:

We have unstable, unsafe countries that people are willing to risk their lives to leave and come to the U.S. with hopes and dreams. Most of them are not criminal but are desperate mothers and fathers with children. The Bibles tells us to welcome the stranger.

But wait a minute. They are coming by tens of thousands. This is far more than the policies and procedures are able to handle. It is overwhelming, not only at the boarder but also at the destinations across the country. It is also unsafe for those who make the journey.

What should we do?

Some popular answers

Build a wall

Close the boarder with more law enforcement.

Deport undocumented immigrants.

The National Immigration Justice center says:


What should the Biden administration be doing to address the humanitarian need at the border? There are other ways to address the situation at the border, leading with empathy and courage in compliance with the Refugee Act of 1980.

The administration can and should:
1) develop and support robust communication and planning between federal, state and local governments, and civil society, so that those arriving migrants in need of additional support can be matched with a destination with capacity to provide services;

2) fully fund and support civil society, including social and legal service providers;

3) create non-custodial, humanitarian reception centers at the border, instead of jailing migrants and asylum seekers; and

4) overhaul the federal immigration budget by moving funds away from detention and enforcement and toward asylum processing and humanitarian needs.

5) abide by its obligation to ensure asylum access to those arriving at the United States’ borders and ports.


Senate Republican Working Group Solutions for the Southern Border Crisis

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_republican_working_group_one_pager.pdf

3. What would improve the U.S. immigration system?

Majorities support increasing the number of judges to process asylum applications and opportunities for legal immigration, but views on other measures are more mixed.

www.pewresearch.org

Click to expand...

Akita, under “Popular Answers”: “Build a wall”

US politicians absent-mindedly opened the border to massive amounts of immigration. The survival of the American nation doesn’t seem to be one of their concerns. The notion of building a wall between the US and Mexico assumed that all the immigrants are coming across the southern border. In fact, huge numbers of immigrants are coming by plane. Many of those are taking high paying jobs away from people born in the US. The “build a wall” crowd seems to dislike Spanish-speaking immigrants more than anything else.

As an environmentalist, a Mexico/USA border wall would clearly be an environmental disaster. To the extent that it has been built, it already is. Many animals are migratory, they move around, they need space. Building a wall in the middle of their range could lead to the extinction of some animals.

seeking.IAM said:

Something different should be done, but it does not seem right to demand other countries do what we are not willing to do ourselves.

Click to expand...

That is what international law says. A refugee may flee to the first safe country. That means they can cross a border into a neighboring country but they have to remain there if it is safe. There are people crossing our border who are coming from the Congo. If they are in fact refugees they should have remained in a neighboring country.

HTacianas said:

That is what international law says. A refugee may flee to the first safe country. That means they can cross a border into a neighboring country but they have to remain there if it is safe. There are people crossing our border who are coming from the Congo. If they are in fact refugees they should have remained in a neighboring country.

Click to expand...

Where is that found in international law? And before you bring up the Dublin Regulation, that's an EU regulation and only applies to EU member states.

eleos1954 said:

Easier to obtain work permits .... it's too slow of a process .... but it does need to be methodical and limited according to available jobs .... we are being overwhelmed by this migration and it is wrong to put this burden on our country and our taxpayers. Americans are struggling .... I am a firm supporter of Americans first and having people coming into this country who will respect our laws ... I believe we can do both but it does need to be methodical and a slow organized process dependent on the health of Americas economy.

Click to expand...

We have initiated this humanitarian crisis. I am a firm believer in the wall so the women and children don't suffer on that long trip or have to pay human traffickers. I also want Americans first and our homeless problem is rising, if the unemployment keeps going up we'll have more on the streets.

My hypothesis for the reason Hispanics and Blacks are switching to Trump is that the Democrats have placed too much importance on immigration. The poor (has no color) in NY see the handouts given while they struggle and work two jobs. The homeless in front of fancy hotels see how illegal immigrants get to live on taxpayer dime.

As an Australian, we have a largely bipartisan policy, that is probably harder than Trump's policy. Our advantage is we have a very large moat, we turn back boats (even tow them) to where they come from and if you do get here by boat, they get sent to Nauru, an offshore detention centre in a small foreign atoll.

I do find it difficult issue to morally deal with. I get why people want to come to our countries, it is proof that we have both built awesome countries. However, we both have very large immigration and asylum intakes. People in our countries (even most immigrants) want an orderly process that can be managed and provided for properly.

I wish we could help everyone to live in countries like ours, but uncontrolled immigration is like letting the lifeboats on a ship be indiscriminately filled, so that they are overloaded and sink, and nobody survives. Not sure I have any easy aanswers.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I am convinced the left desires unfettered immigration...

Click to expand...

I suggest there is no evidence to support this position. I have never seen anyone on the left suggest immigration should be "unfettered". And yet we continually hear the claim that the left wants "open borders".

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

and this is perfectly consistent with their liberal philosophy of devaluing borders and markers of separation between "us and them".

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I will agree that the left advocates for reducing markers between "us" and "them".

expos4ever said:

I suggest there is no evidence to support this position. I have never seen anyone on the left suggest immigration should be "unfettered". And yet we continually hear the claim that the left wants "open borders".

Click to expand...

The left in America and Europe and virtually everywhere in the Western world is unable and unwilling to put into effect policies which would stop people from entering these countries illegally. If you want to demonstrate to me that the left cares about illegal migration and wants to stop it (instead of just wanting to legitimize it and make it legally easier for everyone and anyone to come), then please demonstrate to me where they are doing this anywhere.

expos4ever said:

Fair enough. I will agree that the left advocates for reducing markers between "us" and "them".

Click to expand...

How can you then believe the left wants to limit migration, legal or illegal if you agree that the left considers the alien as equal or near equal to one's fellow citizens?

I can think of two main motivations driving those who get so wound up about immigration. The first motivation is entirely legitimate and honorable - either concern for rule of law (in case of illegal immigration) and / or a concern that immigrants are "taking our jobs". And, for all I know, it could indeed be the case that immigrants are jeopardizing the economic well-being of American citizens.

The second motivation is darker and entirely disreputable - an unreasoned, unthinking fear of "the other". I suggest this fear is innate in all of us. Those who are wise recognize this instinct, like our instinctive propensity for violence, and resist it. But, sadly, there are those who harken unto the siren call of this dark inner voice.

In the present context - the American presidential election - to which of these two camps is Mr. Trump appealing?

When Mr. Trump refers to the 44th President as Barack Hussein Obama, is he merely using his proper full name? Or is he cleverly, cynically trying to establish an entirely unjustified connection between him and the dark sinister forces of fundamentalist Islam?

When Mr. Trump referred to Haiti and African nations as ****-hole countries was he telling it like it is with no agenda? Or was he trying to tickle racist sentiments in his base?

When Mr Trump refers to the coronavirus as the China virus, is he simply being a factual about the place of origin of this virus. Or is he once more appealing to xenophobic sentiments?

And finally, when Mr Trump said earlier this year that Biden is letting in millions of immigrants from jails and mental institutions, was this an innocent error on his part? Or was it a cynically contrived lie to appeal to the base xenophobic instincts of his followers?

The question is not whether it is conceivable that Mr Trump's motivations with respect to immigration are honorable, it is instead what is the more likely explanation: that he is being honorable? Or that he is appealing to base instincts in his listeners?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

The left in America and Europe and virtually everywhere in the Western world is unable and unwilling to put into effect policies which would stop people from entering these countries illegally. If you want to demonstrate to me that the left cares about illegal migration and wants to stop it (instead of just wanting to legitimize it and make it legally easier for everyone and anyone to come), then please demonstrate to me where they are doing this anywhere.

Click to expand...

You are evading. I asked for evidence that those on the left support unfettered immigration. We both know there is no such evidence, you should just admit that this is so.

expos4ever said:

You are evading. I asked for evidence that those on the left support unfettered immigration. We both know there is no such evidence, you should just admit that this is so.

Click to expand...

Is there any leftist movement which actually seeks to reduce legal or illegal immigration anywhere in the Western world? If you are claiming that the left doesn't want unfettered immigration, despite this being consistent with their worldview, then demonstrate it to me.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

How can you then believe the left wants to limit migration, legal or illegal if you agree that the left considers the alien as equal or near equal to one's fellow citizens?

Click to expand...

A clever answer; however, I think it really does not work. People who advocate for a world where people are not seen as "the other" are, obviously, not suggesting that criminals, or people seeking to lazily live off the fat of a destination country, be allowed to immigrate.

If see all people as "equal", it does not logically follow that I think that some people should be denied certain privileges. I happen to believe all people are equal, but people who are not able to pass a driver's test should not be allowed to drive. I happen to believe all people are equal, but people who cannot get a passing grade should not be allowed to graduate. And so on.

I would think a basic concern regarding unchecked immigration has to do with survival and sustainability. The US is losing farmland at an alarming rate and more of our canned food comes from China.

If we keep losing farmland and let immigration go unchecked, how will we feed ourselves? I guess the left will say we need more EVs, wind turbines, & solar “farms”.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Is there any leftist movement which actually seeks to reduce legal or illegal immigration anywhere in the Western world?

Click to expand...

I do not know, but this is irrelevant to what I challenged you about. You claimed that those on the left seek unfettered immigration. We both know this is not the case.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

If you are claiming that the left doesn't want unfettered immigration, despite this being consistent with their worldview, then demonstrate it to me.

Click to expand...

Again, you are trying to evade your responsibility to defend your statement. You claimed that those on the left want unfettered immigration. It is therefore your responsibility, as the claimant, to defend your assertion.

In any event, it is simply false to claim that unfettered immigration is consistent with the worldview of the left. I have just shown this. Just because someone believes all people should be considered equal does not mean that's such a person is logically forced to believe that all people should have equal privileges. Immigration is a privilege not a right.

expos4ever said:

I do not know, but this is irrelevant to what I challenged you about. You claimed that those on the left seek unfettered immigration. We both know this is not the case.

Again, you are trying to evade your responsibility to defend your statement. You claimed that those on the left want unfettered immigration. It is therefore your responsibility, as the claimant, to defend your assertion.

In any event, it is simply false to claim that unfettered immigration is consistent with the worldview of the left. I have just shown this. Just because someone believes all people should be considered equal does not mean that's such a person is logically forced to believe that all people should have equal privileges. Immigration is a privilege not a right.

Click to expand...

I see no evidence that the left cares about someone being a criminal or bot when they migrate either illegally or legally.

Please demonstrate the left taking acting to prohibit illegal or legal movement of people's across borders. You can't because they have no interest in stopping it or punishing it.

You saying that I know the left doesn't want unfettered immigration is a lie.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I see no evidence that the left cares about someone being a criminal or bot when they migrate either illegally or legally.

Click to expand...

You "see no evidence"? Do you really think that counts as evidence to support your claim? Remembering: you claimed that the left supports unfettered immigration. Where is the evidence? Name one politician on the left who has clearly stated that people should be allowed to immigrate with no checks whatsoever.

Claiming that "you see no evidence" is an evasion. I could equally well claim that Donald Trump is a child molester and then, when challenged to support that claim, I could then say "I see no evidence that Donald Trump opposes the molestation of children".

That is not a legitimate defense of my claim. Likewise, you have to provide actual evidence to support your assertion.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Please demonstrate the left taking acting to prohibit illegal or legal movement of people's across borders. You can't because they have no interest in stopping it or punishing it.

Click to expand...

You are doing something that is often done here - shifting the burden of proof from yourself to someone else. It was your claim, you have the responsibility to defend it.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

You saying that I know the left doesn't want unfettered immigration is a lie.

Click to expand...

Fair point. You may indeed believe that the left wants unfettered immigration. You are free to believe whatever you want. But you have provided no evidence that would convince an objective person to believe that you are right. We are all free to believe in things we want to even without evidence. That is not a wise way to live, but it is indeed your right.

expos4ever said:

Just because someone believes all people should be considered equal does not mean that's such a person is logically forced to believe that all people should have equal privileges. Immigration is a privilege not a right.

Click to expand...

If immigration is a privilege then that would mean denying anyone from the country, for ANY REASON, would therefore be morally justified. Including if that reason is their country is a ****-hole or if they’re Muslim. Saying discrimination based on such traits is wrong is suggesting immigration is a right.

Adam56 said:

If immigration is a privilege then that would mean denying anyone from the country, for ANY REASON would therefore be morally justified.

Click to expand...

Of course not. Driving, for example, is a privilege but it is clearly unethical to deny that privilege based on race, or hair colour, or gender, or political belief, or religious belief, or any of a myriad of other attributes unless it could be demonstrated that there is a connection between these things and an ability to drive responsibly.

Likewise, immigration, while a privilege, should not be denied on the basis of considerations that are immaterial to the suitability of that immigrant as a citizen.

expos4ever said:

Of course not. Driving, for example, is a privilege but it is clearly unethical to deny that privilege based on race, or hair colour, or gender, or political belief, or religious belief, or any of a myriad of other attributes unless it could be demonstrated that there is a connection between these things and an ability to drive responsibly.

Click to expand...

I think driving is more an earned right. I don’t see it as a privilege. Immigration and driving are not the same. It’s not clear to me denying based on those things is unethical. Immigration should involve bringing in the people we want.

expos4ever said:

Likewise, immigration, while a privilege, should not be denied on the basis of considerations that are immaterial to the suitability of that immigrant as a citizen.

Click to expand...

Being against Muslims because they would support sharia law and some are terrorists is perfectly reasonable.

Adam56 said:

I think driving is more an earned right. I don’t see it as a privilege.

Click to expand...

Semantics

Adam56 said:

Immigration and driving are not the same. It’s not clear to me denying based on those things is unethical.

Click to expand...

Really? You don't think that denying either immigration or driving based on race is unethical?

A very dubious position - you would be in the august company of the KKK and white supremacists.

Adam56 said:

Immigration should involve bringing in the people we want.

Click to expand...

Where does Jesus teach that we should do "what we want"? Which beatitude was that?

Does that mean that if we like leggy supermodels, we should restrict immigration to them?

Adam56 said:

Being against Muslims because they would support sharia law and some are terrorists is perfectly reasonable.

Click to expand...

This is a bit of a strawman - nothing I have written disagrees with this. However, you would need to make the case that Muslims in general support Sharia law or terrorism.