14

Founders On Immigration

Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
112 comments | Share | Flag

I am re-posting this article in light of Castro kicking the bucket. and I had a few thoughts. When conversing with many Conservatives, I find that they are welcoming to those Cubans, who under great risk, flee the country for Florida. and in that light I wanted to make a few comments to this article.
1. Michelle Malkin was born just a few weeks after her parents came to the US. They were sponsored by a company. However, if we have immigrant quotas, and they had been beyond the quota, Michelle Malkin might well have been a Philippine. and the Philippine's is currently a hot bed of terrorism makers-big Islamic presence there. hmmm
2. If the founders felt strongly on this issue, why do restraints on who could come to the US directly contradict the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Commerce Clause?
3. Mexicans are almost universally Catholic. They are not muslim. Few are terrorists
4. Why are muslims considered a group until they become ex-muslim-then they are considered an individual? (ex: Bosch Fawstin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali)
5. why is it that the Conservatives are hugely vocal about the Constitution until it contradicts their desires. Then they willfully ignore it?

All Comments

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "My de facto freedom is greater than yours"
    I'm intrigued by this. I only went to Mexico for one week during spring break in high school, not long enough to get a feel for whether it's freer. I'm intrigued by even tiny aspects of liberty that could be adopted where I live and everywhere.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ed75 7 years, 5 months ago
    As I understand it the rights outlined in our Constitution are reserved for citizens of the United States, not anyone else.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Again, like I said earlier. The Welfare State as we know it now is an outgrowth of the major policy changes post 1964.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh I've noticed K. I've been against welfare from the get go. While there is some blame for Mexicans entering illegally to take advantage of welfare. There is even more blame for America creating the welfare state in the first place.

    Welfare's original good intention was a helping hand in hard times. What it morphed into was a way of life for too many.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    well, they are tied. what right does a US mother have toward welfare that a mexican mother should not have? the problem is welfare and in case you have not noticed, our children's age is voting democrat by the millions
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Quotas are put in placed by people unable or unwilling to make informed judgment. They do not desire nor can they be made to have the responsibility to make judgments.

    Quotas are never the answer. The root issue is does the prospective immigrant want to joint the American society. If so check their premises as best we can and give them a quick but informed decision. If on the other hand they don't want to become an "American" whatever that means to us individually, they should not be granted any permanent status, but remain aliens on visas.

    I agree the system is slow and disfunctional, quotas are not a solution, they are part of the problem.

    As to child born in the US, that should have been clarified to include at least one parent being either a citizen or permanent legal resident. Having pregnant women coming in temporarily with or without legal status to give birth and then using that infant as the anchor to give them legal status is wrong and should not be allowed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by libertylad 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just curious, kh, how can you defend yourself in Mexico? What are your rights as expats if the local corrupt police decide you (and your gringo money contribution to the economy) are no longer enough? (I admit to be speaking from limited information, and asking as devils advocate.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It isn't just a matter of whether people are "good" (very subjective term, that) so much as it is culturally adaptable. Even a fairly sophisticated society, by our standards, like Russia, has a different focus on customer relations, for example. The quality of product or service delivered, so highly prized in American society, is distinctly less important than simply availability to the rural Russian, who is often shocked when American customers complain about shoddy service. Russians, however, are fairly good at adjusting to finicky Americans, and have a history of success. The same is much more difficult for Somalis, as one example, and they experience a high degree of failure to adapt, with emotional stress to such a degree that the rate of depression, domestic violence, and suicide is high among their immigrant communities. Are we doing these newcomers a favor, or should we try a different approach?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Many would disagree with you Herb. They will keep doubling down on what already failed expecting a different outcome.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Maritimus 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would urge you to study Justice Scalia's writings about how the Constitution should be interpreted. Just reading it is useless. Deriving its meaning and applying that meaning to a concrete question is the real task at hand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So we should let anyone in who has declared his or her allegiance to ISIS, but has not committed a crime?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am ok on vetting. however, our process is slow-to the point of absurd and just paper pushing. Clearly terrorists get in , biding their paper pushing time -most people in the world are productive and good with higher levels of freedom.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    we agree on this. procedural, says that there is a quota legally. so let's say you are quota +1. Is your freedom less than a child born in the US? also, who is your greatest enemy? I propose that your greatest enemy was born in the US.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I didn't know. My only impression of Mexico was when I lived in San Diego and visited Tijuana and Ensenada. I knew a Federal Judge who was born in Mexico and maintained a place on the Atlantic coast which was his vacation/retirement home. His main comment was how inexpensive it was to live there.
    I stand corrected and bow to your experience.
    Do you maintain USA citizenship?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 7 years, 5 months ago
    on "Conservatives...ignoring..."...simple...they are pragmatists with no reasoned, principled, or concretely logical values...the blow with the wind in every direction...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Zen, my point was that travel was so difficult they didn't devote a lot of time to immigration in the founding documents. Their focus was on other things with more immediate impact.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I know what accident of birth means, and I readily accept that I won life's lottery by being born in America. I and others are quite willing to grant such opportunities to all men and women ... who respect the rights of others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ prof611 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The Constitution should be taken literally. There is nothing "obvious" about your "implications". If you wish to update, or modernize it, then propose an Ammendment. That's what they're for!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1) Because citizenship does have, and should have, certain privileges to go along with the responsibilities that citizenship entails; and

    2) Because if someone has a demonstrated lack of respect for the rights of others in his/her own country, there is no moral obligation on behalf of a nation's citizens to tolerate that immigrant until he/she commits a crime in the new country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    accident of birth refers to whether or not you were born in a free nation or a totalitarian nation or a nation in war. it IS an accident-for you. too many americans hold up exceptionalism as their right of birth and not for all men. this is clear in the Constitution
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo