Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immigration -- what's the big deal?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 16 of 43 (749949)
02-10-2015 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-09-2015 4:02 PM


Back at the start of this country there was virtually unregulated immigration,
Don't you think that things are different today than they were at the start of the country?
and I don't see any moral justification for more regulation or barriers to immigration.
If we get too full or cannot afford to immigrate more people, then that would justify more regulations/barriers, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2015 4:02 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 02-11-2015 12:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2015 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 43 (749953)
02-10-2015 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PurpleYouko
02-10-2015 9:44 AM


Re: indentured servitude still alive and kicking
Also, did you know that immigrants from the UK are not even eligible for the green card lottery? that is restricted to natives of many 3rd world countries who apparently need it more.
The lottery has nothing to do with 'need'. It is a Multiculturalism policy specifically meant to 'shake up' the cultural identity of America by introducing people with foreign cultural practices that are often totally incompatible with the Western ideals of freedom and individual liberty.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-10-2015 9:44 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 43 (749971)
02-10-2015 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PurpleYouko
02-10-2015 9:44 AM


Re: indentured servitude still alive and kicking
Also, did you know that immigrants from the UK are not even eligible for the green card lottery? that is restricted to natives of many 3rd world countries who apparently need it more.
The lottery is for countries that have low immigration rates to the US. The hard line is at 50,000 immigrants per year. Citizens from the following counties were ineligible for the 2014 lottery:
quote:
BANGLADESH, BRAZIL, CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, EL SALVADOR, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PERU, PHILIPPINES, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-10-2015 9:44 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 43 (749972)
02-10-2015 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jon
02-10-2015 8:43 AM


Re: The Big Deal is that Jon hyperventilates paranoia ... Again
Makes my job easier, I guess.
What job is that?

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 02-10-2015 8:43 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 02-10-2015 8:25 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 43 (749981)
02-10-2015 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by NoNukes
02-10-2015 5:41 PM


Re: The Big Deal is that Jon hyperventilates paranoia ... Again
What job is that?
Pointing out that RAZD lives in a fantasy world where all of his half-cooked ideas solve any problem imaginable.
It's dirty work, most of the time, but someone's gotta do it.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 02-10-2015 5:41 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 02-11-2015 12:12 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 02-12-2015 11:13 AM Jon has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 21 of 43 (750030)
02-11-2015 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2015 3:19 PM


Cat Sci writes:
If we get too full or cannot afford to immigrate more people, then that would justify more regulations/barriers, no?
The aboriginal people tried that approach. Their barriers didn't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2015 3:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2015 1:19 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 22 of 43 (750031)
02-11-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
02-10-2015 8:25 PM


Re: The Big Deal is that Jon hyperventilates paranoia ... Again
Jon writes:
It's dirty work, most of the time, but someone's gotta do it.
I bet we can get an illegal immigrant to do it for less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 02-10-2015 8:25 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 43 (750051)
02-11-2015 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ringo
02-11-2015 12:10 PM


The aboriginal people tried that approach.
Did they? In what way?
Their barriers didn't work.
What barriers?
In any event, they weren't strong enough - we were stronger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 02-11-2015 12:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 02-12-2015 10:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 43 (750127)
02-11-2015 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2015 3:19 PM


Don't you think that things are different today than they were at the start of the country?
The first laws were fairly simple:
quote:
18th century
Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character".
The Naturalization Act of 1795 increased the residency requirement to five years residence and added a requirement to give a three years notice of intention to apply for citizenship, and the Naturalization Act of 1798 further increased the residency requirement to 14 years and required five years notice of intent to apply for citizenship.
The ""free white persons"" is fairly consistent with the Constitution restrictions on voting rights. These requirements were broadened in late 1800's to allow blacks
The first restrictive\exclusive immigration laws were ~ 1900:
quote:
19th Century
After the immigration of 123,000 Chinese in the 1870s, who joined the 105,000 who had immigrated between 1850 and 1870, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 which specifically limited further Chinese immigration. ...
The act excluded Chinese laborers from immigrating to the United States for ten years and was the first immigration law passed by Congress that targeted a specific ethnic group. ...
quote:
History
Restriction of Southern and Eastern European immigration was first proposed in 1909 by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.[3]
In the wake of the Post-World War I recession, many Americans believed that bringing in more immigrants from other nations would only make the unemployment rate higher. The Red Scare of 1919—1921 had fueled xenophobic fears of foreign radicals migrating to undermine American values and provoke an uprising like Russia's 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.[4] The number of immigrants entering the United States decreased for about a year from July 1919 to June 1920 but also doubled the year after that (Cannato 331).[5]
We still see xenophobia in discussions of immigration law regarding latinos and muslims ...
If we get too full or cannot afford to immigrate more people, then that would justify more regulations/barriers, no?
What is "too full" -- and by who's standard? Does New York City have too many immigrants?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2015 3:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2015 4:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 25 of 43 (750142)
02-11-2015 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
02-11-2015 3:58 PM


Back at the start of this country there was virtually unregulated immigration,
Don't you think that things are different today than they were at the start of the country?
The first laws were fairly simple:
What I meant was: the country today is nothing like it was in the beginning, so the immigration laws that worked back then probably are not going to work today.
If we get too full or cannot afford to immigrate more people, then that would justify more regulations/barriers, no?
What is "too full" -- and by who's standard? Does New York City have too many immigrants?
Oh, I don't know the particulars.
You said that you didn't see any moral justification for more regulation or barriers to immigration.
I was offering being too full or having too little money as possible justifications for you to consider.
They would justify it, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2015 3:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2015 5:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 43 (750185)
02-11-2015 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2015 4:22 PM


What I meant was: the country today is nothing like it was in the beginning, so the immigration laws that worked back then probably are not going to work today.
But those laws did not change because something dreadful happened or because we ran out of room, they changed because of xenophobia and fear.
Note that today some people are admitted by a lottery system, so the only difference between that and letting in anyone who wants to work 5 years is ... ?
Oh, I don't know the particulars.
So it will just be a feeling?
You said that you didn't see any moral justification for more regulation or barriers to immigration.
It's a matter of being unabashedly committed to the basic founding principles of this country, that all people are created equal, entitled to freedom, liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness, and the inalienable rights of ALL people ...
... that means that the people who just happen to live in the US are no more special than other people ... there is no citizenship test for people born here ...
I was offering being too full or having too little money as possible justifications for you to consider.
They would justify it, no?
I don't see why.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2015 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2015 7:29 PM RAZD has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 43 (750189)
02-11-2015 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
02-11-2015 5:50 PM


I was offering being too full or having too little money as possible justifications for you to consider.
They would justify it, no?
I don't see why.
Well, if you run out of money then your whole country collapses. And then you can't help anybody.
Its too full when you're having trouble keeping a healthy environment for the immigrants.
Out of curiosity, have you ever played a civilization simulator?
So it will just be a feeling?
It was a thought. To your question...
It's a matter of being unabashedly committed to the basic founding principles of this country, that all people are created equal, entitled to freedom, liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness, and the inalienable rights of ALL people ...
The founding principles? No, those were for white people. Mostly white male land-owners.
But yes, we have expanded on it quite a bit since then.
... that means that the people who just happen to live in the US are no more special than other people ... there is no citizenship test for people born here ...
Well, that's not what that meant, but I get what you're saying.
But those laws did not change because something dreadful happened or because we ran out of room,
How do you know?
I now have reason to read your links, so I will, but I don't have the time at the moment. I'll get to it tomorrow.
I can just reply to that post again, if you want to wait, or I can throw it in to a reply to your reply to this if you can't.
they changed because of xenophobia and fear.
What do you mean by xenophobia? The definitions I see include qualifiers like unreasonable and irrational.
If there's good reasons for the laws, then I don't they should be called xenophobic.
But those laws did not change because something dreadful happened or because we ran out of room, they changed because of xenophobia and fear.
Anyways, that's quite a case to build. Do you have anything else to support it besides links to those laws?
ABE:
The first laws were fairly simple:
quote:
18th century
Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character".
The Naturalization Act of 1795 increased the residency requirement to five years residence and added a requirement to give a three years notice of intention to apply for citizenship, and the Naturalization Act of 1798 further increased the residency requirement to 14 years and required five years notice of intent to apply for citizenship.
The ""free white persons"" is fairly consistent with the Constitution restrictions on voting rights.
Okay, so "in the beginning", citizenship was only for white people. And, you had to apply; They didn't have to give it to you if they didn't want to. If they didn't think you had a good enough moral character, then that was reason enough to deny you citizenship.
So, as I said, that's not really going to work today.
The first restrictive\exclusive immigration laws were ~ 1900:
quote:
19th Century
After the immigration of 123,000 Chinese in the 1870s, who joined the 105,000 who had immigrated between 1850 and 1870, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 which specifically limited further Chinese immigration. ...
The act excluded Chinese laborers from immigrating to the United States for ten years and was the first immigration law passed by Congress that targeted a specific ethnic group. ...
If you look into the background of that act, you'll find stuff like:
quote:
The first significant Chinese immigration to North America began with the California Gold Rush of 1848-1855 and continued with subsequent large labor projects, such as the building of the First Transcontinental Railroad. During the early stages of the gold rush, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were tolerated, if not well received.[1] As gold became harder to find and competition increased, animosity toward the Chinese and other foreigners increased.
So they thought they were running out of money. Not that that rules out xenophobia too.
I thought it was interesting that the people who pushed for allowing the Chinese to immigrate did so not because they were unabashedly committed to the inalienable rights of ALL people, but instead because of the money they could make off these people:
quote:
In the early 1850s, there was resistance to the idea of excluding Chinese migrant workers from immigration, because they provided essential tax revenue which helped fill the fiscal gap of California.
For this one:
quote:
History
Restriction of Southern and Eastern European immigration was first proposed in 1909 by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.[3]
In the wake of the Post-World War I recession, many Americans believed that bringing in more immigrants from other nations would only make the unemployment rate higher. The Red Scare of 1919—1921 had fueled xenophobic fears of foreign radicals migrating to undermine American values and provoke an uprising like Russia's 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.[4] The number of immigrants entering the United States decreased for about a year from July 1919 to June 1920 but also doubled the year after that (Cannato 331).[5]
I do see the whole "fear" thing, but if it is warranted fear, and the Bolshevik Revolution was something they didn't want happening here, then I'm not so sure that fear is unreasonable or irrational and, thus, I don't think it should be called xenophobic.
In hind sight, it may appear unwarranted, but the people living in those times don't have that luxury. I don't think its fair to just assume that they were "hating others". Perhaps they did have good reasons for wanting to preserve that "American homogeneity". I don't know, I'll have to look into it more.
Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 02-11-2015 5:50 PM RAZD has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 28 of 43 (750230)
02-12-2015 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2015 1:19 PM


Cat's Eye writes:
ringo writes:
The aboriginal people tried that approach.
Did they? In what way?
ringo writes:
Their barriers didn't work.
What barriers?
Tomahawks.
Cat's Eye writes:
In any event, they weren't strong enough - we were stronger.
That's what I said.
And who's to say that the new wave of immigrants won't be stronger than us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2015 1:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 02-12-2015 10:58 AM ringo has replied
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-12-2015 11:21 AM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 43 (750231)
02-12-2015 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by ringo
02-12-2015 10:55 AM


And who's to say that the new wave of immigrants won't be stronger than us?
They aren't.
And they won't be.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 02-12-2015 10:55 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 02-12-2015 11:06 AM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 30 of 43 (750232)
02-12-2015 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jon
02-12-2015 10:58 AM


Jon writes:
ringo writes:
And who's to say that the new wave of immigrants won't be stronger than us?
They aren't.
And they won't be.
I question your powers of prognostication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 02-12-2015 10:58 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 02-12-2015 11:55 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024