3 ms·

I realize that a government or legislature deals in a world of compromises posing as moral imperative, but on immigration specifically I find it hard to stomach

by netcan 12y ago

I realize that a government or legislature deals in a world of compromises posing as moral imperative, but on immigration specifically I find it hard to stomach. I think immigration systems are inherently broken. Free movement is a basic freedom. The right to take employment is a basic right. All compromises that make these rights and freedoms subservient to an immigration policy are inherently broken by the standards I consider moral. Add to that the fact that many of the focuses on the problem with immigrants are xenophobic at their core, whether obvious or not. This isn't just a theoretical objection, we can see the basic compromises at a high level poisoning everything. Take "migrant workers" as a category. Their right to be present is inherently linked to employment. This gives their employer a kind of power over them that is inconsistent with liberal democratic civil rights. They don't vote. Aren't represented. Take this to an extreme and we end up with something like the gulf states, societies where migrant workers are the majority and have their rights limited in ways that harken to Ancient slave-citizen societies. Thee's an old cliche that 'freedom is indivisible.' It's crude, but I think there's a lot to it. Once freedom of movement is limited, it can be negotiated. Those granted permission do so are asked to forfeit rights or they immigrate illegally and forfeit rights. In either case we end up with societies where not everyone has the same rights. The lack of freedom permeates. I really do hope that eventually we will be in a world where freedom of movement is a universal human right.

Shivetya 12y ago
I am not against free movement between countries, however I do not feel anyone is entitled to move into another country and expecting a hand out. Immigrants used to move to other countries fully expecting to bust their ass integrating into society, the goal was to make their children's lives better. The issue here is that this change will damage the job prospects of the underemployed and poor that are already here and divert resources aimed at helping them. We are basically importing a new underclass in many cases which unless there is work for them means they many get sucked into the criminal world, exploited and generally worse off. Why do I say underclass, because most will not be eligible for assistance. Freedom comes with responsibility, to yourself and those whom live around you. There are many things wrong in our immigration policy, the fees alone are silly. However executive actions may not be the best route. It is a pure political play of a man whose actions were timed to after an election and after he lost support of the Senate. If he was so concerned he would have done it his first two years in office. As to the benefits and why each element is good or bad, the information at http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-immigration-executive-order-policy-implications http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-immigration-executive-order-... is invaluable.
- netcan 12y ago
  Just the fact that most people in most places immediate reaction this kind of idea is "handouts" is proof of a problem. We don't have that kind of reaction to people "expecting handouts" who aren't immigrants. Immigrants as a whole are usually members of lower middle classes. Not huge tax contributors, but not a welfare dependent group either. The biggest welfare dependent groups within most countries are entrenched subcultures that have built up the habit over 2 or more generations. There is no reason to assume on the whole that immigrants are an economic drain. The huge gap between people's instinctive reaction and reality, is IMO xenophobia. Anyway, I think economics might be part of the practicalities, but shouldn't be the heart of the discussion. This is a fundamental moral issue, not an economic one.
SubuSS 12y ago
In theory, a very valid point. In practice though, humanity is very varied and is of a thousand inherently contradicting beliefs. Unless we find a way to ensure that local interests ( that the locals have worked so hard to build and conserve ) are protected from herding behavior, local communities/values don't get destroyed just because they got slashdotted etc. this is not possible at all. Not to mention what over-population and sudden influx of a huge # of people can do to an area. This is going to sound like a military hiring rhetoric but, there are many many people out there who would love to tell you what to do/how to live/what to eat etc. and hurt you if you don't follow them. Societies normalize around local 'wackiness' / 'norm' so to speak. Allowing free movement would mean losing those cultural identities per se and I don't think we are ready for that yet. Right now, People who want peace are the ones who should be willing to fight most for it. FWIW - I am an immigrant. I have seen the other side of the world so to speak and can totally appreciate why people want to move to USA.

by netcan 12y ago

Shivetya 12y ago

I am not against free movement between countries, however I do not feel anyone is entitled to move into another country and expecting a hand out. Immigrants used to move to other countries fully expecting to bust their ass integrating into society, the goal was to make their children's lives better. The issue here is that this change will damage the job prospects of the underemployed and poor that are already here and divert resources aimed at helping them. We are basically importing a new underclass in many cases which unless there is work for them means they many get sucked into the criminal world, exploited and generally worse off. Why do I say underclass, because most will not be eligible for assistance. Freedom comes with responsibility, to yourself and those whom live around you. There are many things wrong in our immigration policy, the fees alone are silly. However executive actions may not be the best route. It is a pure political play of a man whose actions were timed to after an election and after he lost support of the Senate. If he was so concerned he would have done it his first two years in office. As to the benefits and why each element is good or bad, the information at http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-immigration-executive-order-policy-implications http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-immigration-executive-order-... is invaluable.

netcan 12y ago
Just the fact that most people in most places immediate reaction this kind of idea is "handouts" is proof of a problem. We don't have that kind of reaction to people "expecting handouts" who aren't immigrants. Immigrants as a whole are usually members of lower middle classes. Not huge tax contributors, but not a welfare dependent group either. The biggest welfare dependent groups within most countries are entrenched subcultures that have built up the habit over 2 or more generations. There is no reason to assume on the whole that immigrants are an economic drain. The huge gap between people's instinctive reaction and reality, is IMO xenophobia. Anyway, I think economics might be part of the practicalities, but shouldn't be the heart of the discussion. This is a fundamental moral issue, not an economic one.

SubuSS 12y ago

In theory, a very valid point. In practice though, humanity is very varied and is of a thousand inherently contradicting beliefs. Unless we find a way to ensure that local interests ( that the locals have worked so hard to build and conserve ) are protected from herding behavior, local communities/values don't get destroyed just because they got slashdotted etc. this is not possible at all. Not to mention what over-population and sudden influx of a huge # of people can do to an area. This is going to sound like a military hiring rhetoric but, there are many many people out there who would love to tell you what to do/how to live/what to eat etc. and hurt you if you don't follow them. Societies normalize around local 'wackiness' / 'norm' so to speak. Allowing free movement would mean losing those cultural identities per se and I don't think we are ready for that yet. Right now, People who want peace are the ones who should be willing to fight most for it. FWIW - I am an immigrant. I have seen the other side of the world so to speak and can totally appreciate why people want to move to USA.