Immigration

[Hurlshort]

I don't believe anyone has called you a racist Di, and I'm sorry if my responses have come across as snide. I do think you are being a bit abrasive and jumping to certain conclusions.

 

For example, I started this entire thread because I believe something does need to be done about immigration. I know it is a problem and it continues to grow. So we do agree on that.

 

We are disagreeing on the solution to the immigration problem. You and Wrath seem to favor a more militant border solution and a serious deportation movement. I have made my arguments against that and also presented what I think are better alternatives.

 

I see this similar to removing a troublesome tree. Currently we are trimming branches and promising that this will solve the tree problem, even though it has proved fruitless. Tightening up the border is like cutting the tree down, it is effective, but you still have a large stump and a network of roots underground. I would like to try and get to the root of the problem first, and that is only going to be achieved by working directly with Mexico.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't see how any of your proposals would make a dent in illegal immigration. As far as improving Mexican economy, that's what NAFTA was for. There's only so much others can do on behalf of someone else. The biggest thing keeping Mexico back is their corruption and drug trafficking, and securing our border would at least help with the drug trafficking.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

France spend a lot of time, effort, amd money building the impressive Maginot Line.

 

The Nazi's drove around it.

 

Yes, but if the border fence is actually completed, they'll have to swim around it. Seriously, this is a major problem for millions and millions of people. I guess people who haven't been adversely affected can't understand the magnitude, but it truly is substantial.

Thing is, they would. It's happened with Cuba (an island nation mind you) and even now drug runners are using small boats to go up the Cali coast to get in.

 

Two water entry points along with XX highway entry points is a lot easier to secure than 3000 miles of open desert. Illegal entries and drug smuggling would decrease by 80-90%.

Thing is, water access is MUCH harder to police. From what I've seen the CG and other authorities basically only catch people zipping up the coast in a boat by luck rather than anything because its' just so hard to find a person in pitch black who's running without lights. Of course this is significantly more dangerous than simply digging under a fence but still, it'd only slow immigration by a small amount methinks.

[Walsingham]

I suppose I should point out that Britain is entirely surrounded by water, but we manage to have an illegal immigration problem.

 

Again, the problem is that the people smugglers have a large portion of their basic infrastructure and manpower costs met by illegal drugs. I doubt they could maintain those structures on the proceeds of people smuggling alone.

[Monte Carlo]

Again, the problem is that the people smugglers have a large portion of their basic infrastructure and manpower costs met by illegal drugs.

 

I'm not sure about that, not being demanding but I'd like to see a Home Office or SOCA paper making the link. Illegal immigration in the UK is about access to jobs, benefits and services, with a nasty but not insignificant undertone of sexual exploitation, depending on where the people are being trafficked from. Furthermore, the crucial difference between immigration and asylum isn't made.

 

I don't see where drugs come into it. I know (and rather like) lots of Polish people; their diaspora wasn't fuelled by drugs, it was fuelled by prosperity and they've come here completely legitimately as EU citizens. They do like a drink, like I said I rather like them. This doesn't mean that I think that social cohesion is helped by the schools in southern England having a large proportion of foreign-speaking pupils.

 

Our problems remain over-generous benefits and a lack of a border police service. The economic armageddon in public spending in the UK means that benefits will be cut and the Govt. is setting up a border police. This will still be hampered by the ghost in the machine - political correctness. Google 'Common Purpose' every senior public sector manager goes on their networking sessions and they are secretive about what their agenda is.

 

That's enough about the UK.

 

Hurlie, your 'let's treat the big problem' is great, but its only a part of the issue. You are talking about strategy, i.e. fixing a failed narco-state. Folks on the ground are thinking more tactically and who can blame them. Part of the problem is, again, political correctness and the self-loathing of the left. Once upon a time the huddled masses at Ellis Island proudly declared their new identity as Americans while acknowledging their past. Now, you get the impression that being American is a sort of bolt-on to your original identity, even though you've sworn the oath or even worse haven't and are just camping out there using the services and giving nothing back.

 

So please, drawing a distinction between the macro and micro problem is misleading. If I lived in Arizona I'd be in my pick-up, holding the line with the other concerned people. Not because I'm a xenophobe but because when the government lets you down so egregriously rolling onto your back seems like a pretty crappy option.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[Monte Carlo]

double post

Edited July 3, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[Calax]

I suppose the question is where do we draw the line between politically correct and xenophobic while still maintaining a border open enough that the Statue of Liberty doesn't need to have it's book changed. If we become completely xenophobic and seal our borders airtight except those who get through legally then I feel we've let down what is part of our national identity.

 

 

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

' With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

I somehow doubt locking down our borders and saying "You can come becuase DEY DOOK OUR JRRRBS!" is keeping in the spirit of that statement.

[Walsingham]

Fair points, Monte.

 

- I said I 'doubted' they could maintain people smuggling to the same extent without drugs to keep the rest of the machine running. I don't have a study to back me up on that. I don't know of any comprehensive audits of organised crime syndicates, but it's possible they've been done. My points was that to be effective it helps to have safe houses, a network of feared enforcers, and a distracted defender. This is all consistent with syndicates being pumped full of more money than they know what to do with via illicit drugs.

 

- I don't know if you CAN fix Mexico without ending the drug trade. Mexico is always going to be the most logical transhipment point of drugs to North America so long as South America continues to make them. The sums involved are staggering and as we can see in Afghan even full intervention doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

 

- I certainly accept that there are finite resources available, and that disparate populations fall into bickering, and violence. It's a lesson taught by no less an authority than the old apartheid government of South Africa, which sought to resettle black Africans whenever it got the chance on (usually spurious) grounds of returning them to their 'homelands'. I don't see how unrestricted immigration can possible help any more than unrestricted loading of people into a lifeboat.

 

~ I'm not convinced that there aren't patronising roots to the hippy-dippy insistence on accepting everyone claiming asylum. For ****'s sake there's nothing wrong with most of the countries people want to emigrate from besides the people. I'd have thought the logcal solution was to work more effectively to solve these problems, not act as a massive safety valve/brain drain until the only people left are too stupid or too scared to leave. Do we really want the whole world to become like Wales?

[Hurlshort]

This whole smuggling across the border stuff doesn't represent the largest group of illegal immigrants. People just cross the border on a visa and then overstay the length. I imagine that is the majority of the 12-20 million illegal immigrants, at least those coming from Mexico. It isn't a closed border, and it will never become one as long as we are doing $300 Billion in trade a year.

 

My aunt lives in Rosarito, Mexico, and she used to work in San Diego, California. Every day she would cross the border to go to work. It was basically a 30-mile commute that took about 3 hours to cover.

[Meshugger]

It seems like the concept of nation-state is slowly dying. Language, culture and customs are slowly dissappearing within the global utopia that is currently being built. The only thing left is trade and business and strong sense of individuality among the few, and apathy among the masses.

 

Lets just all enjoy the ride, shall we?

[HoonDing]

It seems like the concept of nation-state is slowly dying. Language, culture and customs are slowly dissappearing within the global utopia that is currently being built. The only thing left is trade and business and strong sense of individuality among the few, and apathy among the masses.

 

Lets just all enjoy the ride, shall we?

I, for one, welcome the coming Global Caliphate.

[Meshugger]

I hardly believe that it will come to fruition though. WW III is more likely.