Immigration Reform not happening under Obama

[Strix]

In what way does that disapprove Marty? Your country was built by immigrants, which happened to be illegal most of the time, but a) you did let them in, and b) keeping them illegal was moronic

In short: give me my fuckin' working visa and let me prove myself

Actually no, the country was built by immigrants who happened to be legal most of the time. They were oppressed at various times but more often than not that was a result of bigotry and hatred brought from Europe and other places by prior settlers and immigrants.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

The choice here is the issue of efficiency. Either you think the benefits of having legal cheaper workforce outweigh the potential cost of encouraging more illegal immigration or you don't. What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.

Well, it's also a question of what sort of people you want in. Those of us in the Anglosphere are pretty big on waiting our turn and not queue-jumping.

I dunno about that. I know lotsa of whitebread queue jumpers, given the chance. more like: we want the less than pale pipples to wait their turn

[dps]

What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.

You find it bizarre that some people argue that we shouldn't recognize as legal behavior that breaks the law?  And then you're surprised that people question whether or not you're really a lawyer?  lol

[Valmy]

I dunno about that. I know lotsa of whitebread queue jumpers, given the chance. more like: we want the less than pale pipples to wait their turn

I would question the idea we want poor and uneducated white people coming over here either.  Last I checked we were not sending out messages to Russia and Eastern Europe telling them all to flock over illegally but hey whatever makes you feel justified.

[Berkut]

What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.

You find it bizarre that some people argue that we shouldn't recognize as legal behavior that breaks the law?  And then you're surprised that people question whether or not you're really a lawyer?  lol

Indeed, what a bizarre argument for Marty to make.

The US is not against immigration, but to claim that being opposed to illegal immigration on moral grounds is rather difficult to understand.

I guess we shouldn't bother with laws at all, since breaking them has no moral weight. Of course, he is drawing a false distinction anyway, since in fact the laws are created based on economic principles to begin with.

[Caliga]

This is not the first time he's taken this position, as I pointed out in the "lol stop saying I'm not a lawyer thread" a week or so ago.

[grumbler]

...If you were a WASP.  Look at Irish settlers, look at the transcontinental railroad, look at Ellis Island.  The United States has a pretty inglorious history where immigration is concerned.

WTF? 

[derspiess]

...If you were a WASP.  Look at Irish settlers, look at the transcontinental railroad, look at Ellis Island.  The United States has a pretty inglorious history where immigration is concerned.

WTF? 

Apparently we are monsters since Ellis Island didn't have amenities on par with The Greenbrier.

[Grallon]

The thing about being a bigot is bigotry is entirely impervious to logic, evidence, or the experience of being proven dead wrong time and time again.

Except this time - surely you will recall:

[grumbler]

Not really though.  You guys take about a million immigrants per year, legally.

But your overall population is over 300 million.

Canada receives about 250,000 per year, legally, but into a population one tenth the size of the US.  Australia seems to take in around 120,000-150,000, into a population of 20 million.

To put your accuracy into context, since your made-up US number is short by 500,000 immigrants per year, Canada and Australia can be said to allow no immigrants at all.

To use non-made-up numbers that actuially are meaningful to the discussion, we need merely go to http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-557/p3-eng.cfm and discover that in 1996 Australians were 22.6% foreign-born, Canadians just under 20% foreign-born, Americans just under 13% foreign-born, and (from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1312 Britains 8.3% (in 2001, the last year for which figures were available).  This data does not support a contention that the US does not allow in a large number of immigrants.

[KRonn]

Agreed. Most Americans aren't against immigration, but they want it controlled or regulated to some extent, not a free for all coming across the border, as makes sense for any nation to do. The US takes in a large number of legal immigrants every year.

Not really though.  You guys take about a million immigrants per year, legally.

But your overall population is over 300 million.

Canada receives about 250,000 per year, legally, but into a population one tenth the size of the US.  Australia seems to take in around 120,000-150,000, into a population of 20 million.

I don't know the numbers, but I'd say a million a year is actually quite a high number anyway. I'd assume each country takes in what it feels its economy can absorb, or what ever other criteria. The US has a need for workers, so also issues lots of Green Cards for people to just work here.

I also assume that Canada and Australia, with much lower populations, might be encouraging more people to immigrate to build up population, which also translates to more economic growth.

[The Minsky Moment]

What I find bizarre in the immigration debate is that some people seem to view this as a moral issue of principles and argue one should not recognize illegal aliens as legal not because it would be bad for the economy etc., but just because they broke the law.

You find it bizarre that some people argue that we shouldn't recognize as legal behavior that breaks the law?  And then you're surprised that people question whether or not you're really a lawyer?  lol

That's not his argument though - he is arguing that it is bizarre to conclude that something is immoral simply because it is against the law.

He is making a distinction between morality and positive law.

[Barrister]

To put your accuracy into context, since your made-up US number is short by 500,000 immigrants per year, Canada and Australia can be said to allow no immigrants at all.

To use non-made-up numbers that actuially are meaningful to the discussion, we need merely go to http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-557/p3-eng.cfm and discover that in 1996 Australians were 22.6% foreign-born, Canadians just under 20% foreign-born, Americans just under 13% foreign-born, and (from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1312 Britains 8.3% (in 2001, the last year for which figures were available).  This data does not support a contention that the US does not allow in a large number of immigrants.

I pulled the one million figure from a website (wiki I think), the same as I did for Canada and Australia.  So feel free to provide alternate figures, but your response is unduly hostile.

My source was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States which gives a couple of different numbers depending on where you look in the unweildy article, but none are as high as 1.5 million that I can see.  But feel free to provide alternate sources, I'm not going to live and die based on a wiki article.

The figures for % foreign born is obviously strongly correlated to immigration rates, but it is tied to past immigration policies which may have changed.  It also doesn't discriminate between legal and illegal immigration.

But for all that I think you're agreeing with me - Canada and Australia have much higher rates of immigration than the US does.

[derspiess]

That's not his argument though - he is arguing that it is bizarre to conclude that something is immoral simply because it is against the law.

He is making a distinction between morality and positive law.

Maybe, but he's also trying to put the burden of proof on the wrong side.

[Berkut]

But for all that I think you're agreeing with me - Canada and Australia have much higher rates of immigration than the US does.

Does that include illegal immigration?

And no, Canada and Australia do not have higher "rates" of immigration at all.

In fact, one could see this simply by reading the article you posted:

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world.[1] In 2006, the number of immigrants totaled 37.5 million.