Don't we need more immigrants?

[guids]

and dont for one second think that when the irish/italians came over there wasnt a big "uproar" about assimilation, like some people do with the mexicans. History repeats itself, its just that the media is able to distort and spin things on a wider scale nowadays.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe in immigration. The great American melting pot and all. Just believe immigration laws should be enforced. Whats wrong with immigrates coming into the country by legal means. Immigrates who come in legally most likely will be law abiding and become good productive Americans. Do think those who come in illegally will be? How about the three killers in New Jeresy for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that most people who want to come to America and be hard-working, law-abiding citizens, cannot come here legally. I think all immigrants should come here legally, and all immigrant should be able to come here legally (unless they are criminals).

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

It would greatly help if the US government actually staffed the consulates and embassies around the world to expedite the process instead of leaving poeple waiting for 15 years or more. There is obviously a demand for immigrants in this country--have the governement help the process instead of hinder it.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that most people who want to come to America and be hard-working, law-abiding citizens, cannot come here legally. I think all immigrants should come here legally, and all immigrant should be able to come here legally (unless they are criminals).

[/ QUOTE ]

BAM. BANG. ZOOM. SPOT ON. CORRECT!

[old dogg]

There is without doubt reform is needed. But until then the current laws must be enforced. You all misunderstand me I am not anti-immigration just believe current laws should be enforced. Let me put this to you, do you believe illegals should be allowed in even if it means breaking the law?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
There is without doubt reform is needed. But until then the current laws must be enforced. You all misunderstand me I am not anti-immigration just believe current laws should be enforced. Let me put this to you, do you believe illegals should be allowed in even if it means breaking the law?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I consider the laws, WRONG, UNAmerican, unenforable and detrimental to the future of The USA, then HELL YES!

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
America is supposed to be the nation of shared ideals and the dream of he works hardest succeeds, rewarding entrepeneurs and innovators. NOT the nation defined by geography, ethnicity, nor race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right on.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
There is without doubt reform is needed. But until then the current laws must be enforced. You all misunderstand me I am not anti-immigration just believe current laws should be enforced. Let me put this to you, do you believe illegals should be allowed in even if it means breaking the law?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think history has taught us that the quickest way to get particular laws changed is to have massive amounts of people break them.

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]
and dont for one second think that when the irish/italians came over there wasnt a big "uproar" about assimilation, like some people do with the mexicans. History repeats itself, its just that the media is able to distort and spin things on a wider scale nowadays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and since Nazi-Germany and Japan became affluent, Western-style democracies soon after their regimes were violently overthrown, the same thing will inevitably happen in Iraq. Any other opinion is simply media spin and distortion.

The fact that earlier immigrant groups have assimilated doesn't necessarily mean that Mexican immigrants will assimilate under the current conditions. In the early 20th century circumstances were different and pressure on immigrants to assimilate was much stronger, for instance no welfare state etc.

Do you have any data that actually support Mexican assimilation happening?

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
Immigration is the backbone of the "theory" of America.

America is supposed to be the nation of shared ideals and the dream of he works hardest succeeds, rewarding entrepeneurs and innovators. NOT the nation defined by geography, ethnicity, nor race.

Restricting (in the way most republicans/super conservatives wish to) immigration is yet another symptom of the disease which may doom America.

Those who would claim restricting immigration is "protecting the homeland" or some such crap, are hypocritical IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


Without even realizing it, this was my Pooh Bah post and now..... In thinkin bout it I'm actually quite happy with that unintended result.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Opponents of illegal immigration have several prongs to their agenda. One is to "secure the border' building a wall and posting guards. Another is to punish businesses for hiring cheap immigrant labor. Another is to deport illegals back to their home nations.

Ironically, the majority of those opposed to illegal immigration claim to be conservatives--that is, they also claim to oppose things like minimum wage laws, protectionism, and tariffs, and support outsourcing operations to nations where they can hire cheaper labor.

Much of the immigration rhetoric deals with "securing the border" as part of the war on turr, but why does border security have to be bundled with what is essentially a tariff on foreign labor? Shouldn't the supposedly conservative border security advocates also get behind real immigration reform that would allow business owners to purchase labor at true market prices much like they support purchasing it overseas?

[/ QUOTE ]

More cheap labor is one factor in favor of allowing more immigration. That doesn't comprise the entire picture, though. There is more to immigration than cheap labor, and there is also more to immigration than economics.

I actually think the country would probably do well to slow the flood of immigration to a trickle for a decade or two, and create a window of time for immigrants already here to actually assimilate, as did more immigrants of old.

Personally, I don't need more cheap workers to mow my lawn, as for that matter I could hire a local high school kid to mow it if I so wished. I don't own a manufacturing business or low-level service business, so I don't need to hire cheap labor. I don't need more congestion (and car pollution) in general, and I don't like having to wait every time I call a business to hear the menu say "Press 1 for English, press 2 for Spanish...(pause)". Maybe in 30 years it will be a choice of four languages instead of just two, won't that be great to have to wait through every time you call AT&T or Dell or Home Depot. Multiply the ten-second wait (today) times every person, every day, all year round, and that is an awful lot of total waiting around just wasted. How inefficient.

Things seem to cheap enough for me already at Wal-Mart and McDonald's (though I rarely eat there). I don't spend a lot anyway so why should I care much about saving a little more.

Don't the lowest wage-earners in America generally tend to consume more in social benefits than they pay in taxes anyway? So I'm not convinced it is a net plus for the economy to have unlimited quantities of unskilled/low-skilled laborers entering the country every year.

I can definitely see the advantage if you are in a niche business that wants and needs to hire cheap low-skilled or unskilled labor. I can see the advantage for politicians, too. Other than that I don't see an advantage to opening the floodgates even wider.

Let's consider too for a moment how the demographic change will affect future voting. Low-skilled/unskilled immigrants will generally vote Democrat. This will work in concert with pandering politicians to ramp up pressure to increase social services and to increase taxes to pay for all of that. So more low-skilled immigrants will increase pressures for a larger welfare state. Increased pressures for a welfare state will naturally increase political pressures for more Big Government, more Taxes, more Statism.

Those who want to see a smaller State, a less powerful and less intrusive government, ought to consider that voting demographics do matter to their cause.

Those who lean Libertarian or AC-ist, ought to consider that the only way to have either of those, or even to merely reduce government somewhat in that direction, is to have a demography of voters who mostly want the same sort of thing. Do you get that? It's really key. The only way to have the kind of government and society you want, is to have a majority people around you who mostly want the same thing. Think on this - please.

Most immigrants come from backgrounds of bigger not smaller government; which direction do you think they'll vote towards??? By bigger I mean relatively more intrusive, more controlling, more statist. If you want to mold America into even more Statism, and more welfare statism, by all means, let anyone and everyone who wants to immigrate right in, regardless of background or qualification.

If Libertarians and AC-ists want to have any chance at all at a smaller government, let in only people who are well-off financially and have good incomes. If you want to destroy any chance of having a Libertarian, or even a properly limited Constitutional government, let in every unskilled worker from every country where they are accustomed to strong state control of affairs. They'll vote the way they are used to.

All of this isn't even touching on what it may mean, demographically, to let in unlimited numbers of people from Wahabbi-worshipping lands. Suffice to say, if you like and wish to see upheld the U.S. Constitution, it doesn't make sense to naturalize those who have other, conflicting, higher priorities and loyalties.

America is already changing in many ways, and mostly not for the better. America was a better country in 1960's and even 70's, this was then a much better place to live: far less crime, better school results, less violence, less drug problems, less pollution, less congestion, less nearly everything bad. What has changed? For one thing, both demographics and total population have greatly changed over he last several decades due to immigration.

Just think on these things; that's all I ask.

Thanks for reading.

edit: Early American immigrants came here without a government-provided social safety net. The ramifications and differences of that, compared to immigration today, are truly great. I'll amend my post along the lines that as long as America has government-sponsored social safety nets, I think that unbridled low-skilled immigration is not a net plus. If this were America in the 1800's, it might attract ONLY those who were coming to work hard and learn English and assimilate and become Americans (instead of people merely living in America). This, too, is worthy of thought.