Low cost living and quality of life/safety issues

[Chad]

@SW Definitely hypothetical.

I don't have a problem with reducing our military expenditures and expeditions, so I'm not arguing from that point (not that you implied that, just being clear).

I don't think you are suggesting this, but I'm going to point out it's a bad idea anyway (because a lot of other people think this is the answer). The military is notoriously bad at policing and would create numerous international incidents if they patrolled the area. Plus, there is a reason the US military is basically unbeatable in an army to army show down...they train a lot and do a ton of equipment upkeep. These patrols would obviously take away from their training. Ok, now back to your actual suggestion.

I agree it's very similar to the drug trade. This is why I don't think it's a matter of money or resources. The resources we would have to commit to seriously reduce illegal immigrants would be so much larger than anything that would be saved, it just doesn't seem worth it. Especially, since there are obvious benefits by having them (negatives too).

What I think you are really trying to say (I may be wrong, so correct me) with the drug trade analogy is that you want to open up legal immigration, while preventing illegal immigration. Essentially, we would make it possible for a lot more foreigners to immigrate legally. The theory being that this alone would stem most of the "illegal" part of the immigration, which seems to be what you dislike. We would then be able to spend a few more resources to secure the border, without basically creating a Berlin Wall on the Mexican-American border.

I don't think that would work, as the supply of slots, even if substantially higher, and demand, foreigners wanting to get in, curves would probably still be way off. Using the drug analogy. If a state made 5 lbs of marijuana legal every month it wouldn't impact the illegal drug trade much. Even if they raised that to 1,000 lbs or 10,000 lbs it wouldn't do much. I'm suggesting that we can't raise the legal immigration number high enough to create the efficiencies necessary to make this viable. The only way would be to make anyone legally an immigrant, which doesn't work either.

The only real chance would be enforcing illegal immigrant hiring laws, but it's hard to tell if that would be efficient enough to make it viable.

[GandK]

Do you really think it's a money issue? If so, is it even worth it?

Call me a cynic, but I think 100% of international politics is, at bottom, about money.

There are many people in the US that basically believe we are now full. That a hundred years ago when people were settling North America, we hadn't fully colonized the place yet, but now we have, so now it's different. Now the resource pie has been established as being a fixed size, so any new entrants are by definition using some other legitimate citizen's resources, at a time when many believe they are already not getting their fair share. (See all the 99% arguments.)

This scarcity mentality creates a fearful, xenophobic, knee-jerk response to immigration that it takes effort to overcome. I fight against it myself. For hundreds of years, my family on both sides have been Appalachian farmers. When I was young I thought I'd live the same way someday... have a few hundred acres, a little farm house, raise my own food... no one would bother me and I wouldn't bother them.

That option is almost gone now. And that's partly about immigration, and partly about institutional farming. Both boil down to a rising population. The more people there are, the more expensive good land becomes for everyone. I do mourn the loss of rural farming communities. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.

It isn't racist/Nazi to say out loud, "Hey... I don't feel like there are enough opportunities for ME... I'm not keen on sharing what there is." But we need to recognize that the perceived threat to status, security and lifestyle that we fear from this latest influx is likely NOT realistic, and that it stems from our own life frustrations rather than anything to do with the human beings coming across our borders today.

Maybe then we can have an honest conversation about solutions and their true costs.

[Chad]

Do you really think it's a money issue? If so, is it even worth it?

Call me a cynic, but I think 100% of international politics is, at bottom, about money.

There are many people in the US that basically believe we are now full. That a hundred years ago when people were settling North America, we hadn't fully colonized the place yet, but now we have, so now it's different. Now the resource pie has been established as being a fixed size, so any new entrants are by definition using some other legitimate citizen's resources, at a time when many believe they are already not getting their fair share. (See all the 99% arguments.)

This scarcity mentality creates a fearful, xenophobic, knee-jerk response to immigration that it takes effort to overcome. I fight against it myself. For hundreds of years, my family on both sides have been Appalachian farmers. When I was young I thought I'd live the same way someday... have a few hundred acres, a little farm house, raise my own food... no one would bother me and I wouldn't bother them.

That option is almost gone now. And that's partly about immigration, and partly about institutional farming. Both boil down to a rising population. The more people there are, the more expensive good land becomes for everyone. I do mourn the loss of rural farming communities. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.

It isn't racist/Nazi to say out loud, "Hey... I don't feel like there are enough opportunities for ME... I'm not keen on sharing what there is." But we need to recognize that the perceived threat to status, security and lifestyle that we fear from this latest influx is likely NOT realistic, and that it stems from our own life frustrations rather than anything to do with the human beings coming across our borders today.

Maybe then we can have an honest conversation about solutions and their true costs.

I was asking about the amount needed to adequately secure the boarder, but your interpretation was definitely interesting reading. I grew up on a small (80 acre) farm too. I really like your statement:

But we need to recognize that the perceived threat to status, security and lifestyle that we fear from this latest influx is likely NOT realistic, and that it stems from our own life frustrations rather than anything to do with the human beings coming across our borders today.

[workathome]

@workathome - I'm sure the "Department of State Security" already knows.

That's another one of those lessons of history that's easily forgotten or never taught in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

Yes, his "hate speech" is a threat to the state's ideology. I believe reporting it was correct. He has already been moved to the reeducation centre.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-2 ... pound.html

[workathome]

So I have the choice between the Stasi and racism. Hm. Yeah. Keep teaching me more about German history.

I was just giving you a ribbing because of the self-referencial German comments. Somehow you magically transmuted someone saying "I don't think we should permit people to enter the country illegally" into visions of gas chambers. That's a bit crazy, eh?

[tylerrr]

@SW Definitely hypothetical.

I don't have a problem with reducing our military expenditures and expeditions, so I'm not arguing from that point (not that you implied that, just being clear).

I don't think you are suggesting this, but I'm going to point out it's a bad idea anyway (because a lot of other people think this is the answer). The military is notoriously bad at policing and would create numerous international incidents if they patrolled the area. Plus, there is a reason the US military is basically unbeatable in an army to army show down...they train a lot and do a ton of equipment upkeep. These patrols would obviously take away from their training. Ok, now back to your actual suggestion.

I agree it's very similar to the drug trade. This is why I don't think it's a matter of money or resources. The resources we would have to commit to seriously reduce illegal immigrants would be so much larger than anything that would be saved, it just doesn't seem worth it. Especially, since there are obvious benefits by having them (negatives too).

What I think you are really trying to say (I may be wrong, so correct me) with the drug trade analogy is that you want to open up legal immigration, while preventing illegal immigration. Essentially, we would make it possible for a lot more foreigners to immigrate legally. The theory being that this alone would stem most of the "illegal" part of the immigration, which seems to be what you dislike. We would then be able to spend a few more resources to secure the border, without basically creating a Berlin Wall on the Mexican-American border.

I don't think that would work, as the supply of slots, even if substantially higher, and demand, foreigners wanting to get in, curves would probably still be way off. Using the drug analogy. If a state made 5 lbs of marijuana legal every month it wouldn't impact the illegal drug trade much. Even if they raised that to 1,000 lbs or 10,000 lbs it wouldn't do much. I'm suggesting that we can't raise the legal immigration number high enough to create the efficiencies necessary to make this viable. The only way would be to make anyone legally an immigrant, which doesn't work either.

The only real chance would be enforcing illegal immigrant hiring laws, but it's hard to tell if that would be efficient enough to make it viable.

I agree the best way to enforce it is to ENFORCE illegal immigration hiring laws....If you did that in a real way, which is very possible, not nearly as many illegal immigrants would be flooding over our borders taking low wage jobs.

In addition, it is not rocket science like the Feds or illegal immigrant advocates proclaim....If this federal government really wanted to stop illegal immigration, they could cut it down by 80% at least....The fact is, they don't want to....it's not a priority. That's especially true for the entire Democrat party that sees a permanent, super majority through a future populace increasingly composed of H
ispanic immigrants who demand more government benefits and vote 90% for the Democrat Party who promises more of those government benefits.

Of course, we know our federal government chooses not to enforce these laws because they advocate for the modern slave labor work force that we have through illegal immigration.

I also find it interesting that some of the most forceful arguments on this thread saying the USA should just "give up" on keeping out illegal immigrants and it's "hate speech" or "racism" if we want to enforce our laws and have a LEGAL, ORDERLY immigration process which benefits American citizens, come from posters who were not born in the USA or who don't live here....

[jacob]

@workathome - No, the point is that hate speech is a threat to democracy because once it becomes generally accepted, it's a convenient rallying point for populist movements and subsequently likely to lead to human right violations, one step at a time.

Here's the recipe. Basically, given a dysfunctional economy/political situation, divert attention(*) to a minority blaming them for most of the problems, and turn the disenfrancised into "useful idiots" in order to gain votes and take power. Later persecute said minority with the full acceptance of the public.

It always starts like this.

History has lots of examples. They all turn out bad in the end. It would unfortunately appear that humans are quite prone to this kind of behavior.

This is why hate speech is either illegal (in some countries, especially those with recent examples) or at least culturally discouraged (in others, especially those with spillout from the former). Removing hate speech removes an important ingredient for cooking up totalitarian and antisemitic movements. Partaking in it adds the ingredient. All you need then is to add a few other ingredients, such as a well-spoken demagogue who seems to have all the solutions if only we remove a few incoenvient rights and KABOOM.

Yes, education plays a role in this because we would rather not repeat the bloody mistakes of the past.

In any case, while free speech enjoys tremendous protections in the US using it for hate speech just to vent personal frustrations about the job situation of the economy is not exactly taking the moral high ground to say the least. Common decency should really be enough to avoid it. Surely there's a express one's desire to stop immigration without refering to other nationalities as morons and toilet bowls. Yes?

(*) It would be better to concentrate on why politicians and pundits try to make this minor issue into such a major issue. What bigger issues are they trying to divert attention from? Or take the advice from further up the thread. Ignore the national politics and just make changes in your personal life instead.

[workathome]

But we need to recognize that the perceived threat to status, security and lifestyle that we fear from this latest influx is likely NOT realistic, and that it stems from our own life frustrations rather than anything to do with the human beings coming across our borders today.

I think you're right, depending on who is fearful.

My assumption is that additional low-wage workers will have some disproportionally negative effects on existing minorities (e.g. African Americans, Mexican immigrants already here) who have lower average median incomes, while the existing rich and upper middle-class, largely white (and other minorities like asian tend to be largely higher-income-earners), might get a boost through additional availability of cheap laborers.

(example: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/re ... .html?_r=0)

[llorona]

C'mon. We're talking about PEOPLE. Human beings. Illegal immigrants behave no differently than you or I would do in the same situation. It's about survival.

Think about it. Just say the U.S. suddenly experienced a massive water shortage, but neighbors to the south have an abundant water supply. There's barely enough water here to drink. Crops are dying. Animals are dying. It breaks your heart watching your children.

You really think you'd sit watching your family wither into the dust? You really think you'd play by the rules and attempt to apply for a visa or citizenship in the neighboring country, a process that might take years with a miniscule chance of a positive outcome? No! You'd do what you needed to do to help your family survive.

Strip away our fancy education, our privilege, our entitlement. We are no different. Let me repeat that: We are no different. We. Are. All. Just. Trying. To. Survive.

While I'm ranting, let me address a few other points. I'm sick of the argument that illegal immigrants suck up welfare resources. You can't even apply for food stamps or public assistance if you're illegal. And burdening the hospital system? Well, our entire medical system is such as joke that many Americans can't even afford medical care. And this insistence that everyone needs to speak English? As far as I'm concerned, Americans are the laughing stock of world because most of us only speak one language and we gallivant to other countries demanding that everyone else speaks English. What if we actually embraced linguistic diversity as a cultural benefit and net asset to our society?

Moving on. Oh, you want to stop the problem of illegal immigration? Well, sitting around spewing vitriol and hatred and perpetuating an "us versus them" attitude isn't going to do much. Stemming the flow by building walls clearly isn't effective. Oh, gee. How about investing in the place where people are coming from? Maybe trying to make conditions better or give folks economic opportunity so they can support themselves, while remaining in their homeland with their families? That's a novel idea.

[Chad]

@SW Definitely hypothetical.

I don't have a problem with reducing our military expenditures and expeditions, so I'm not arguing from that point (not that you implied that, just being clear).

I don't think you are suggesting this, but I'm going to point out it's a bad idea anyway (because a lot of other people think this is the answer). The military is notoriously bad at policing and would create numerous international incidents if they patrolled the area. Plus, there is a reason the US military is basically unbeatable in an army to army show down...they train a lot and do a ton of equipment upkeep. These patrols would obviously take away from their training. Ok, now back to your actual suggestion.

I agree it's very similar to the drug trade. This is why I don't think it's a matter of money or resources. The resources we would have to commit to seriously reduce illegal immigrants would be so much larger than anything that would be saved, it just doesn't seem worth it. Especially, since there are obvious benefits by having them (negatives too).

What I think you are really trying to say (I may be wrong, so correct me) with the drug trade analogy is that you want to open up legal immigration, while preventing illegal immigration. Essentially, we would make it possible for a lot more foreigners to immigrate legally. The theory being that this alone would stem most of the "illegal" part of the immigration, which seems to be what you dislike. We would then be able to spend a few more resources to secure the border, without basically creating a Berlin Wall on the Mexican-American border.

I don't think that would work, as the supply of slots, even if substantially higher, and demand, foreigners wanting to get in, curves would probably still be way off. Using the drug analogy. If a state made 5 lbs of marijuana legal every month it wouldn't impact the illegal drug trade much. Even if they raised that to 1,000 lbs or 10,000 lbs it wouldn't do much. I'm suggesting that we can't raise the legal immigration number high enough to create the efficiencies necessary to make this viable. The only way would be to make anyone legally an immigrant, which doesn't work either.

The only real chance would be enforcing illegal immigrant hiring laws, but it's hard to tell if that would be efficient enough to make it viable.

I agree the best way to enforce it is to ENFORCE illegal immigration hiring laws....If you did that in a real way, which is very possible, not nearly as many illegal immigrants would be flooding over our borders taking low wage jobs.

In addition, it is not rocket science like the Feds or illegal immigrant advocates proclaim....If this federal government really wanted to stop illegal immigration, they could cut it down by 80% at least....The fact is, they don't want to....it's not a priority. That's especially true for the entire Democrat party that sees a permanent, super majority through a future populace increasingly composed of H
ispanic immigrants who demand more government benefits and vote 90% for the Democrat Party who promises more of those government benefits.

Of course, we know our federal government chooses not to enforce these laws because they advocate for the modern slave labor work force that we have through illegal immigration.

I also find it interesting that some of the most forceful arguments on this thread saying the USA should just "give up" on keeping out illegal immigrants and it's "hate speech" or "racism" if we want to enforce our laws and have a LEGAL, ORDERLY immigration process which benefits American citizens, come from posters who were not born in the USA or who don't live here....

It might be the best way, but that doesn't mean it's likely to work. The "Drug War" failure blatantly shows how little influence police work can have. Your 80% number is purely ephemeral.

Not all of the people on here who think you play a little loose at the edge of hate speech are foreign born.

Also, my previous post on page 2 of this thread was not misleading because you happened to live in a few cities. There are plenty of small towns with the same or worse safety ratings than the prototypical mega cities in the US.

http://city-crime-statistics.findthebest.com/

[workathome]

Global-warming doubt speech could kill a lot more people than "hate speech" ever has. I wonder if we should come up with a list of other types of speech we should limit for public safety reasons. Or maybe throw up the concept of free speech altogether? What's the point of permitting free thought at all when the mass could go from Jekyll to Hyde at any second. Voting seems kinda dangerous too TBH.

[C40]

[quote=Jacob]
Common decency should really be enough to avoid it. Surely there's a express one's desire to stop immigration without refering to other nationalities as morons and toilet bowls. Yes?
[/quote]

Tyler called Tijuana a toilet bowl. I've been there, and that's actually a good description, especially when you compare it to San Diego (striking contrast).

If I recall correctly, he was saying or implying Mexicans would turn the US into a toilet bowl also. Clearly a gross exaggeration.

[jacob]

@workathome - Free speech is not an all or nothing proposition. Lines have already been drawn. For example, you can't yell fire in a theater. This is for public safety reasons. Also, you can't speak fighting words that leads to immediate harm, e.g. "That guy over there sucks, let's go beat him up" or "That shop owner is an illegal immigrant, lets throw a rock through the store front". This is for personal safety reasons. Also, you can't make libellous statements about other persons.

Now, the last restriction is interesting because hate speech is a kind of group libel which is illegal in Europe but legal in the US.

The line is drawn [in Europe] because it was recognized that allowing group libel had lead to the kind of [totalitarian] society that turns around and in turn removes free speech. Ironically, free speech is restricted in order to protect free speech. In other words, you can say whatever you want as long as you don't say things that acts in the direction of no longer letting you say what you want. These laws came about due to painful historic experience.

The US lacks similar large scale experience although the racial issues of the civil rights movement came close.

Now we can easily make up other things that maybe we shouldn't talk about for safety or whatever other reasons. Maybe we shouldn't be allowed to deny climate change or overpopulation. Maybe we should all be forced to say "he or she" whenever we use a generic pronoun. However, the motivation behind such laws must be whether we can have a functional society in which discourse which supposedly reach a democratic outcome that respects human rights. A society that denies global warming can do so going down in flames in a perfect democratic debate. A society that refuses to substitute "sportsman" with "sportsperson" can also subtly change people's perceptions of gender. However, neither of these lines can implode the right to free speech itself.

There's a good reason that free speech is in the first amendment. Its necessity for a functioning democratic process is considered to be of primary importance. However, to keep that right [and democracy] we must restrict ourselves if not legally then culturally or morally from abusing it, because abuse can and has lead to losing it.

PS: If you want, you can compare it with the second amendment. Now, there's a reason that citizens are allowed to own a rifles and pistols, but not howitzers and ballistic missiles even though the latter are also a kind of weapon. A line was drawn there too.

The world is a shade of grey. Not black or white.

[workathome]

I understand the essence of your point, but I still think you're trying to use alchemy. I don't understand how you're equating someone saying "I don't like X" or "we should force X to obey our society's existing laws" with Kristallnacht. How are you defining hate speech? It seems rather ambiguous. Advocating violence towards an individual, whether or not its based on their race, is not permitted - call it "planning to commit a crime" or "hate speech" if you prefer - and assign extra punishment for certain variations if you will.

[jacob]

That's because some of you guys said a bit more than simply "I don't like X" or "I think we should force X to obey existing laws". Nobody has any problems with that.

From the internet: "Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Basically group libel.

You can check the thread above for references to national origin being connected with genetics, low mental abilities, accusations of being criminals, poor hygiene, etc. That sounds eerily familiar in a historic context. Namely, the kind of speech that did lead to things like Kristallnacht.
Basically it passed the duck test with several people here and not just those who weren't born on American soil.

[jacob]

Part of the confusion (or inability to see the obvious) might ironically be due to our different "educations".

It's my impression from talking to several people in several countries on both sides of the pond that basically there were two distinctly different take-aways from WWII.

The American take-away is the the US is the "good guys" who came in fought the "bad guys" and won. Since then it's been in the national soul that the US is always a force of good against all the evil in the world. It is inconceivable to Americans that the US could ever be the bad guys. It just doesn't, indeed, can not feature into the equation.

The European take-away was very different, namely, that "good guys" can easily be corrupted by bad ideas and consequentially become "bad guys". Lots of research was done to see if "badness" was somehow inherent or whether it could be induced. The Stanley Prison experiment is probably the most famous one. Overall, it was concluded that most people are inherently good but that badness is easily induced and that we must remain very vigilant and even set up entire institutions to prevent such ideas from taking root. Therefore "bad ideas", such as hate speech, were both culturally and in many cases legally restricted.

Similar different conclusions seem to have been drawn wrt the different experiences with mass surveilance. Europe has a history in which this was severely abused by overreaching governments. The US does not have such a history.

In addition, the immigration problem in Europe is about 20-40 years older. Due to a failure to solve it properly, specifically in casting the problem is the age-old "us vs them" form, Europe already has their nationalist extremists represented by actual political parties who not only get elected but actually get quite a few votes. That by people who consider themselves "good 'patriotic' citizens" too.

So I really suggest learning from the European experience. You don't want the US ending up where Europe is today and was almost a hundred years ago.

[workathome]

Yes father. Thank you for enlightening this backwards yokel. Your copy-and-paste definition isn't incredibly ambiguous. If anyone ever says anything offensive about more-than-one-person and the state appointed duck committee verifies it's offensive nature, the speech will be immediately halted and the offender punished.

[Chad]

But given that objection, I take it you objection to one of the next two most prevalent countries of origin these days, India (worse than Mexico) and applaud immigration from the other, China. Or do you deem those people defective as well?

Actually, by the IQ test, we ought to replace most Americans with Chinese people immediately. Great idea, huh?

I think your all-or-nothing reaction is a good representation of how emotional-laden this issue is. Admitting to IQ differences doesn't certainly equate eugenics or "defective" - though this notion does seem commonly and mistakenly held. I think real life examples may help though: Google and the US Military doesn't round up "defectives" for camps just because they use intelligence testing on recruits.

Yes, of course Chinese-only immigration would have a dramatically different impact on the future of America that Mexican-only immigration! Any immigration policy (or no policy) is going to have dramatic effect on the future of a nation based on who comes or doesn't come (obviously!).

There are 5-billion or so people in the world who live below-our-standards and would probably rather-be-here depending on the effort involved.

Now who is emotional.

Also, if Dragline's response was all or nothing, so was your initial IQ response.

[tylerrr]

That's because some of you guys said a bit more than simply "I don't like X" or "I think we should force X to obey existing laws". Nobody has any problems with that.

From the internet: "Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Basically group libel.

You can check the thread above for references to national origin being connected with genetics, low mental abilities, accusations of being criminals, poor hygiene, etc. That sounds eerily familiar in a historic context. Namely, the kind of speech that did lead to things like Kristallnacht.
Basically it passed the duck test with several people here and not just those who weren't born on American soil.

basically, most Americans don't want a few elites deciding what is "hate speech" and "what is not"....That's what you sound like....You sound like an elite who thinks he's more intelligent than others with different viewpoints and therefore you get to decide what is considered "hate speech".

I'm sure many atheists with PHds would consider a lot of the Bible "hate speech" and would have it banned if they could....And would have Christian/Catholic schools made illegal. So should we do that even though there are over 2 billion Christians who believe in the Bible?

I don't want an arrogant group of elitists in the Federal government changing the rules on what is "hate speech" and what is not....

Also, have you been to Tijuana? I have....It's a toilet bowl full of criminals and people i don't really want to hang out with....Now, you go to Costa Rica, and it's some of the nicest people I've ever met. Why is there the need to be politically correct and not call a spade a spade....Why try to change reality? Why lie just to be politically correct?


I'll stick to my stance: I welcome immigrants of all colors with Engineering, Medical, and computer science degrees who want to come here legally....INCREASE legal immigration to make our country better and DECREASE illegal immigration while forcing the dead-beat, lazy bums collecting phony social security disability payments, to work the fields, clean hotels, etc.

Take away their free government checks and automatic vote for the "fundamental transformation of America".

I hear a lot of white people on this topic making feel-good posts so they can tell themselves "i'm not a racist" because i want to flood the country with illegal immigrants....

I just don't carry enough white guilt around to feel that i have to suck-up to whole groups of people based on their skin color. I'd rather judge people by the content of their character.

[tylerrr]

In addition, the immigration problem in Europe is about 20-40 years older. Due to a failure to solve it properly, specifically in casting the problem is the age-old "us vs them" form, Europe already has their nationalist extremists represented by actual political parties who not only get elected but actually get quite a few votes. That by people who consider themselves "good 'patriotic' citizens" too.

So I really suggest learning from the European experience. You don't want the US ending up where Europe is today and was almost a hundred years ago.

"due to a failure to solve it properly"......

The whole point is.....some of those European countries wouldn't be in their horrible position if they had not let in millions of illegal immigrants for slave labor.....Now, their culture is changing permanently along with having more internal strife.....It's a total mess and we don't want to be in the same mess. That's why we're trying to stop the madness of letting millions of people flood into the country with a completely different culture, language, and low education.

Go ask the native French and Germans and Dutch if they're happy with letting in millions of undocumented workers. Most are not...Their governments have betrayed them just like it's happening here....