| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2003/10/16 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:10666 Activity:nil |
10/16 Why are conservatives so up in arms about illegal immigrants when
they're obviously so good for business? You don't see them picketing,
complaining about better wages or benefits, or making any effort
to be a squeaky wheel at all. We've already seen that profits
trump patriotism (Halliburton under Cheney doing big business in
Iraq during the sanctions, Reagan selling missiles to Iran for
profit, etc).
\_ When did you stop beating your wife?
\_ The same reason Strom Thurmond switched parties when the
Republicans became the new home of southern racists. They
blather about morality, but if you look at their other positions
racism is the only explanation for the American "conservative"
stance on immigration.
\_ (a) it's not obvious that they are, when costs to the government
are taken into account, and
(b) there is a moral argument to be made which is that illegals
are breaking the law to be here, and should be deported on those
grounds alone.
\_ a law that is meagerly enforced, and arguably ineffective because
its aim is wrong. If they targeted the demand instead of the
supply, they'd go further in curbing "illegal" immigration
\_ Often when people get up in arms about an issue it's because
they're upset with other things in life and want to feel the
pleasure of righteous anger by loudly decrying another group.
This is true of both liberals and conservatives. -emin
\_ If someone is willing to answer the question:
How many people should live in the United States?
Then all these issues are easily resolved. -ax
\_ that question has no answer.
\_ Or What should the population limit of the US be? -ax
\_ the same question, the same lack of answer. It's
a value judgement.
\_ And if the answer is the set of Americans that
include you minus one, how are we going to settle
this? Fisticuffs at twenty paces?
\_ The point is that all this discussion is based on
the idea that the US grows without bound. If you
set limits, you can set rates of immigration, etc. -ax
\_ If you set limits, you must supply reasons for
those limits. When you do that, you risk sounding
like the previous waves of immigrants who were all
for their own immigration but wanted the doors shut
behind them.
\_ I think it is trivial to prove that we should
have limits. No one would like the country to
have a population of zero. No one would like the
country to have a population of 172 Trillion.
I think it is obvious that there is some "ideal"
zone somewhere between those two and it is the
job of the political process to decide where
than number is. Personally, I think the United
States and California would be better off with
fewer people than we have now.
\_ You seem to imply that there's no distinction possible between
legal, authorized immigration and illegals.
\_ Agreed with above. Even if there is no bound on the number
of people who can live here, we, as a country, still reserve
the right to choose who comes here, how they do it, and what
conditions they should satisfy.
\_ What is the basis of this "right"?
\_ What is the basis of all rights? This is a good question
but one which can be asked with equal force of illegal
immigrants themselves: "What is the basis of their right
to come to a country unlawfully?" -- ilyas
\_ One might suggest that they were endowed by their
creator with the right to pursue happiness. And while
I don't agree, I definitely think that if one is going
to restrict anothers free movement, it definitely falls
on the restrictor to justify his right in doing so and
not the other way around. -phuqm
\_ The right to pursue happiness does not allow one
to do so at the expense of someone else. Again,
the issue boils down to the effects of illegal
immigration on the host country. I take an even
stronger position -- even if illegal immigration
has an overall positive effect on a country, the
country still need not allow it. The same principle
applies to my house. I may benefit from having
someone over for dinner, but I may not want company
that day, and it's my right to refuse. -- ilyas
\_ And it goes deeper than this. Was it easier
at one point to get into the US? If so, what
justifies making it harder now? And if it's
unfairly more difficult now, migrating illegally
becomes a noble and just activity.
\_ It was also easier to break into someone's
house because locks weren't as good, and doors
weren't as sturdy. It seems perfectly
justifiable to make breakins harder.
\_ Breakins, yes, but why make it harder to
immigrate legally?
\_ Was legal immigration made more
stringent?
\_ That's the question, innit?
\_ Perhaps because the country is getting
over crowded.
\_ Bzzt. There's still plenty of room
in the cities and the countryside.
\_ No there isn't. Not given the
current infrastructure. There is
room in some rural areas, but no
immigrants ever go there because
there is no work.
\_ In the end, the fact is that the citizens of this
country are here now. We may not "deserve" to be
here any more than illegal immigrants however we
are perfectly justified in protecting our own.
If I buy land I am not forced to sell off bits of
it to newcomers. Compared to old times, there is
no longer wide open lands to settle (at least not
where anybody actually wants to or does go). They
pack into increasingly poor living areas and it's
within our rights to regulate that process and do
it under our terms. There are far more people in
the world than we need. That's why we have to work
our asses off to even afford a piece of land to
live on.
\_ I found this link interesting:
http://207.188.212.158/Research/Research.cfm?ID=1820&c=2
-- ilyas |
| 5/25 |
|
| 207.188.212.158/Research/Research.cfm?ID=1820&c=2 The 1950s and 1960s The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act INA of June 27, 1952, was a major revision of existing immigration and nationality law. It continued, with modifications, the essential elements of both the 1917 and 1924 Acts, as well as those provisions of the Internal Security Act of September 23, 1950, relating to the exclusion of Communists. The 1952 INA reflected the cold war atmosphere and anti-communism of the period, following World War II at the onset of the Korean War. The law was in essence an act of conservatism rather that of intolerance. The difference between the climate of opinion in the 1920s and the early 1950s is apparent in the following statement in the 1950 report of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Without giving credence to any theory of Nordic superiority, the subcommittee believes that the adoption of the national origins quota formula was a rational and logical method of numerically restricting immigration in such a manner as to best preserve the sociological and cultural balance of the United States. In contrast to the 1920s, the case for the national origins quota system in the 1950s was not generally argued on the grounds of racial superiority, but on sociological theories of the time relating to cultural assimilation. The discriminatory provisions against most Asian countries were also slightly relaxed by the 1952 Act. However, the legislation was characterized by supporters and opponents alike as restrictionist, and it was a severe disappointment to those who had hoped for a liberalization of the immigration law. In particular, the continuation of the national origins quota system was viewed by critics of the legislation as being inappropriate to the needs of United States foreignpolicy. Foremost among these critics was President Truman, whose veto was overridden by a vote of 278 to 113 in the House, and 57 to 26 in the Senate. Quoting from his veto message: Today, we are protecting ourselves as we were in 1924, against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration. In addition to continuing the national origins quota system for the Eastern Hemisphere, the INA also established a four-category selection system. Fifty percent of each national quota was allocated for distribution to aliens with high education or exceptional abilities, and the remaining three preference categories were divided among specified relatives of United States citizens and permanent resident aliens. This four-point selection system was the antecedent of our current system, which places higher priority on family reunification than on needed skills. However, under the 1952 law, national origins remained the determining factor in immigrant admissions, and Northern and Western Europe were heavily favored. As in the past, the Western Hemisphere was not subject to numerical limitations. Immigration during the decade 1951 to 1960 totaled 2,515,479 an average of about 250,000 per year, the highest since the 1920s. This is not surprising, since the two intervening decades included the depression of the 1930s and World War II. The gap between Eastern and Western Hemisphere immigration also narrowed: of the 25 million entries, almost a million entered from the Western Hemisphere. Less than half of the immigrants who entered during the 1950s were admitted under the quota system. The gradual recognition that the national origins quota system was not functioning effectively as a means of regulating immigration was an important factor leading to the next major policy revision, which came in 1965. Refugee Admissions in the 1950s and 1960s Major refugee admissions occurred outside the national origins quota system during the 1950s. The Refugee Relief Act RRA of August 7, 1953, and the amendments of August 1954, authorized the admission of 214,000 refugees from war-torn Europe and escapees from Communist-dominated countries. Thirty percent of the admissions during the life of the Act were Italians, followed by Germans, Yugoslavs, and Greeks. The RRA originated as an Administration bill, and combined humanitarian concern for the refugees and escapees with international political considerations. Quoting from President Eisenhowers letter which accompanied the draft legislation: These refugees, escapees, and distressed peoples now constitute an economic and political threat of constantly growing magnitude. They look to traditional American humanitarian concern for the oppressed. International political considerations are also factors which are involved. We should take reasonable steps to help these people to the extent that we share the obligation of the free world. In particular, the inclusion of the category of escapees from communist domination in this and subsequent refugee legislation reflected the preoccupations of this Cold War period. This concern was also a major factor in the admission of refugees from the unsuccessful Hungarian revolution of October 1956. A total of 38,000 Hungarian refugees were eventually admitted to the United States, 6,130 with RRA visas and the remainder under the parole provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act INA. The Act of September 11, 1957, sometimes referred to as the Refugee-Escapee Act, provided for the admission of certain aliens who were eligible under the terms of the Refugee Relief Act, as well as refugee-escapees, defined as persons fleeing persecution in Communist countries or countries in the Middle East. This was the basis for the definition of refugee incorporated in the INA from 1965 until 1980. A total of 29,000 entered under the temporary 1957 refugee provisions, led by Hungarians, Koreans, Yugoslavs, and Chinese. During the 1960s, refugees from persecution in communist-dominated countries in the Eastern Hemisphere and from countries in the Middle East continued to be admitted, first under the Fair Share Law, enacted July 14, 1960, and subsequently under the INA. Its primary purpose was to enable the United States to participate in an international effort to close the refugee camps which had been in operation in Europe since the end of World War II. United States participation was limited to one-fourth of the total number resettled. Cuban refugees began entering the United States with the fall of the Batista government in 1959, and continued throughout the 1960s and, in smaller numbers, the 1970s. Approximately 700,000 Cuban refugees had entered the United States prior to a new influx which began in April 1980. The United States has accepted the Cubans as refugees from communism through a variety of legal means. The INA Amendments of 1965 and their Aftermath The October 1965 amendments to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act INA repealed the national origins quota system and represented the most far-reaching revision of immigration policy in the United States since the First Quota Act of 1921. In place of nationality and ethnic considerations, the INA amendments PL 89 236; Since 1965, the major source of immigration to the United States has shifted from Europe to Latin America and Asia, reversing the trend since the founding of the nation. According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service INS, Europe accounted for 50 percent of United States immigration during the decade fiscal years 1955 to 1964, followed by North America at 35 percent, and Asia at eight percent. In fiscal year 1988, Asia was highest at 41 percent, followed by North America at 39 percent , and Europe at 10 percent. In order, the countries exceeding 20,000 immigrants in fiscal year 1988 were Mexico, the Philippines, Haiti, Korea, India, mainland China, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and Jamaica. These figures reflect a shift in both accessibility and conditions in the sending countries. For example, Asian immigration, which was severely limited prior to the 1965 amendments, subsequently has been augmented by the large number of Indochinese refugees adjusting to immigrant status outside the numerical limits. On the other ha... |