Let me guess, a vast empty desert of nothingness. Undefined as a nation by your rules. Was Europe a homogenous entity? Or a "nation of tribes"? If the native Americans had invaded Europe, would there be a nation with laws or immigration process as they determined it? If not, does it mean they would be justified in genocidal displacement and occupation? I'm asking you to define what you mean by a nations right to admit the people they choose.
Sam, quit playing the dunce. Europe is and was a continent with numerous nation states that had a system of laws and government. North America was a largely empty continent with tribes. They were not nations in the way that the term is understood. And even if they were, my main points still stand. The plight of Immigration now and colonialization from hundreds of years ago have nothing to do with each other. Nothing. And your attempt to compare them is nothing more than a form of cheap reductionalism, which you are using to make a moronic argument. Really, quit wasting everyone's time with this junk.
Again who decides what are the "right" laws under which a nation may choose admittance? The nation? Or the immigrants? Or what you decide is convenient?
S.A.M., what's the relevance to the "legality" of European colonists, and the mistreatment of Native Americans by the US government in the 1800s, to today's issue of illegal immigration in the US? What's the exact point you're trying to make?
You could not understand my definition of illegal immigration (as explained in the immigrants who entered a foreign country and committed genocide). So I'm asking you yours.
I'd rather hear the exact point, in the form of a sentence, that you're trying to make on this before we go into that. After all, the article in the OP refers to an issue that isn't about what our personal opinions are on what is or isn't illegal immigration, or what should or shouldn't be illegal immigration.
I think the immigration you are seeing today is the displaced people of the past displacing those who displaced them. Is that concise enough? I think illegal immigration is an illegal term for those who have illegally colonised other lands.
It's certainly a point that could be argued. But while you are against the use of the term illegal immigration, are you for or against what the term actually refers to?
Depends on the motivation. e.g. The May 2006 New York Times/CBS News Poll, shows that 53 percent of American responded that “illegal immigrants mostly take the jobs Americans don’t want” (pew Hispanic center). . In another 2006 poll, the NBC/Wall Street Journal held in April, 61 percent of the U.S. population concluded that they would like illegal immigrants to stay within the United States if they “could pass a security check and pay taxes” (pew Hispanic center). Showing that the actual majority of the population would rather have Mexican immigrants in the country as long as the abide by the taxation laws, and provide service that American citizens do not provide. So what is the motivation?
It's different for different illegal immigrants. My aunt and uncle and their family are illegals of a sort. They came here from Bangladesh legally but their visa expired a long time back, so they've been staying illegally. Their motivation was to provide their children with a better life, education, etc.
No, there are simply much better opportunities in the US, but you know that already. Can we not take baby steps and just jump right into what you're trying to get at? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you don't want "illegal" immigrants "breaking rules" to get into the country, you need to apply the concepts you want them to follow to yourself. You cannot follow a foreign policy that destabilises and impoverishes other countries and then claim immunity from the consequences.
I actually agree, but then does that mean you think the US should be following some sort of open border policy? What you're espousing is a great concept, but how would you apply it in practical terms? Aside from changing the foreign policy of course as that. even if it was implemented immediately, would take years and years to really work as a solution.
Those who are opposed to immigration should not blame the Mexicans, who are doing what anyone else would do to feed their family. Big corporations and industries in America love the idea of this immigration. They're dedicated, loyal workers who are paid low wages. The Republicans are all about big business, meaning no matter how harsh they talk about illegal immigration, they support the cause wholeheartedly. When money is the motivator, there are no rules.
I don't see any reason why not. I actually believe this will ease the immigration problems, since most people, given the choice would rather work here but live at home. I believe it is the difficulties in crossing over that force many people to stay on. :shrug: Many immigrants work for several years and collect the money so they can return. The world has become too small to be building more walls.
