There are no illegal immigrants in America

[regular.joe]

Bottom line, after all the comas and "the"'s, immigration law is not unconstitutional in theory, or in practice. Radar, you should be a lawyer and start representing those who are currently considered illegal aliens. I'm sure they would appreciate your help and assistance.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here...maybe there should be an amendment that says, "congress has the power to regulate immigration". Are you arguing on principle here? Are you saying that we should not regulate immigration to our country? Bottom line is we should, and we do. It may not lie within the letter of the constitution, it certainly lies with the spirit and principle of the constitution.

What I really see with Radar is a man who intensely reveres the constitution and intensely distrusts the people elected by the process set up by the constitution. What a conflict. I'm not saying that all of our elected officials are worthy of trust. The process is worthy of trust. We have the power to remove them, or not, based on the constitution. Not only do we have to abide by the letter of the words written, the spirit of the document as well.

I'm going to include a list here of all sections of the United Sates Code that are unconstitutional, since there is no specific power granted to congress to regulate these areas.

TITLE 7 AGRICULTURE
TITLE 8 ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
TITLE 13 CENSUS
TITLE 16 CONSERVATION
TITLE 20 EDUCATION
TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS
TITLE 23 HIGHWAYS
TITLE 24 HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS
TITLE 29 LABOR
TITLE 30 MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
TITLE 43 PUBLIC LANDS
TITLE 49 TRANSPORTATION

Wow, why am I not in law school, I obviously belong there.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

Fighting over the word "of" didn't work so now you want to dispute a comma?

[Aliantha]

I thought this debate was settled when we all realized Radar was right as always?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Bottom line, after all the comas and "the"'s, immigration law is not unconstitutional in theory, or in practice. Radar, you should be a lawyer and start representing those who are currently considered illegal aliens. I'm sure they would appreciate your help and assistance.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here...maybe there should be an amendment that says, "congress has the power to regulate immigration". Are you arguing on principle here? Are you saying that we should not regulate immigration to our country? Bottom line is we should, and we do. It may not lie within the letter of the constitution, it certainly lies with the spirit and principle of the constitution.

What I really see with Radar is a man who intensely reveres the constitution and intensely distrusts the people elected by the process set up by the constitution. What a conflict. I'm not saying that all of our elected officials are worthy of trust. The process is worthy of trust. We have the power to remove them, or not, based on the constitution. Not only do we have to abide by the letter of the words written, the spirit of the document as well.

I'm going to include a list here of all sections of the United Sates Code that are unconstitutional, since there is no specific power granted to congress to regulate these areas.

TITLE 7 AGRICULTURE
TITLE 8 ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
TITLE 13 CENSUS
TITLE 16 CONSERVATION
TITLE 20 EDUCATION
TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS
TITLE 23 HIGHWAYS
TITLE 24 HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS
TITLE 29 LABOR
TITLE 30 MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
TITLE 42 THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
TITLE 43 PUBLIC LANDS
TITLE 49 TRANSPORTATION

Wow, why am I not in law school, I obviously belong there.

Actually, the Constitution does grant congress power over making roads...postal roads to be specific, and a census so taxes can be apportioned according to the population.

Everything else on the list would be better off in private hands.

As far as whether or not I think immigration should be regulated, my personal opinion is that we should keep up our tradition of welcoming a free flow of immigrants with open arms. But at the very least we should not allow the federal government to regulate immigration unless the Constitution is amended to grant such powers to Congress. The same goes for everything else you mentioned.

Allowing the government to control any area not specifically granted to them by the Constitution is wrong. Also, it's good to keep in mind that the federal government wasn't meant to control these things. It was meant to involved in our lives as little as possible, to settle disputes among states, etc.

The states were meant to have power over other areas IF the people grant the state such powers, but neither the states, nor the fed should ever have any authority to limit or restrict our rights any more than the boundary of another person's equal rights.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

As far as whether or not I think immigration should be regulated, my personal opinion is that we should keep up our tradition of welcoming a free flow of immigrants with open arms.

I was going to raise this when you folks were arguing about whether immigration could be construed as "invasion", but you all seemed busy.

Suppose the Chinese government has an agent reading the Cellar, and they realize that they can send people to the US at will. They start a program to send, say, 350 million people to the US over, say, 5 years. Huge ships carry massive numbers to the west coast where they are put on rafts and paddle themselves ashore.

They are completely unarmed, wave American flags as they wade ashore, avow no hostile intentions, obey the laws, totally swamp the local infrastructure, seek citizenship and voting rights ... and are arriving at about 70 million per year, and within five years will make up more than half of the population.

This example is very far fetched. I'm trying to illustrate the point that there comes a time when uncontrolled migration would be very bad for the receiving country and the people who are there now.
What would you do, Radar? Grit your teeth and keep holding the door open? Or limit immigration?
This is no longer a question about the constitution. Rather about what should be done.

[Radar]

What's to stop the United States from doing the same thing to other countries? Nothing but common sense. Most likely any Chinese that came here would love the economic and social freedoms and they would be flying those flags for real.

Would having a half Chinese population be a bad thing? How about half Irish? If enough people immigrated here that opportunity started drying up, they would start to go somewhere else.

More people would mean we'd need more workers to service them and would certainly drive the economy to build housing and more infrastructure. My opinion is the only limit on our immigration should be the desire for others to come here.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Radar

What's to stop the United States from doing the same thing to other countries?

Well, every country that I know about has laws that control immigration.
I think the people and thus the government of a country have a right to protect their interests (to a certain degree - humanitarian refugees being an exception) by limiting immigration. I was wondering if you agreed.

And there are two types of limiting - the first (which we've already discussed) being limiting the total number, the second being preventing certain individuals from migrating: criminals, trouble-makers, agents of hostile powers, etc.

If you wouldn't limit the overall number, would you prevent certain individuals, based on their behaviour or intentions? I would. You?

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I think the people and thus the government of a country have a right to protect their interests (to a certain degree - humanitarian refugees being an exception) by limiting immigration.

Do you justify by using xenophobia? Xenophobia is the only basis for America's fear of immigration using the exact same logic that proved Saddam had WMDs. Ironically, many of those who believed that Saddam lie also fear immigration using the same logic. The Economist of 5 January 2008 describes this situation with proper perspective.

About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants. Around a third of Silicon Valley companies were started by Indian and Chinese. The low-skilled are needed too, especially in farming, services, and care for children and the elderly. It is no coincidence that countries that welcome immigrants - such as Sweden, Ireland, America, and Britain - have better economic records than those that shun them.

Given all these gains, why the backlash? Partly because politicians prefer to pander to xenophobic fears than to explain immigration's benefits. But not all fear of foreigners is irrational. Voters have genuine concerns. Large numbers of incomers may be unsettling; economic gloom makes native fear for their jobs; sharp disparities of income across borders threaten rich countries with floods of foreigners; outsiders who look and sound notably different from their hosts may find it hard to integrate. To keep borders open, such fears have to be acknowledged and dealt with, not swept under the carpet. ...

Above all, perspective is needed. The vast population movements of the past four decades have not brought the social strife the scaremongers predicted. On the contrary, they have offered a better life for millions of migrants and have enriched the receiving countries both culturally and materially. but to preserve these great benefits in the future, politicians need to the courage not only to speak up against the populist tide in favour of the gains immigration can bring, but also to deal honestly with the problems it can sometimes cause.

Xenophobia of immigration is based in myths, lies, and propaganda. Rush Limbaugh preaches this xenophobia as Rush routinely does - facts be damned. Therefore these immigration problems exist right alongside another Limbaugh truth - Saddam's WMDs. Why did Saddam have WMDs? As even stated by some here in the Cellar - only because we feared he might. Great nations have greater immigration.

What is a major problem for the Silion Valley? Immigration restrictions because so many Americans fear as Cheney and George Jr do rather than promote a stronger American future.

Immigration problems in America are from those who would exercise their fears rather that learn reality. More specifically, those are same people who believe Rush Limbaugh decrees. Immigrants mean net profits for America; not the massive welfare myths promoted by extremists. Oh. And those whose jobs are at risk due to immigrants? Why were they so anti-American as to not get educated?

[ZenGum]

TW, if you follow the exchange from posts 350 to 352, you might see that my comments were in the context of a huge flood of people. Doubling the population in five years kind of scenario. I cannot imagine this would be in any country's interest - the infrastructure would simply be swamped.
I was talking about whether a nation has the right to regulate immigration to manage this sort of situation. I was not saying that all immigration is bad.

My perspective is that of an Australian. A constant, moderate flow if diverse immigration is definitely good for Australia. A huge wave would create a lot of problems.

Please do not suggest I am xenophobic. Right now I am a xeno. And a quick think of my friends from the last decade or so shows that a good deal less than half are old-style "anglo" Australians.
And please, do not ever liken me in any way to Rush Limbaugh. Ever.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

TW, if you follow the exchange from posts 350 to 352, you might see that my comments were in the context of a huge flood of people. Doubling the population in five years kind of scenario. I cannot imagine this would be in any country's interest - the infrastructure would simply be swamped.

Why do you automatically assume a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? It is the assumption found in Rush Limbaugh logic. But where are the numbers - the facts? That assumption is not proven by history. Your intent may not be to agree with Rush – who does preach xenophobia to promote a political agenda as Goebels did in Nazi Germany. You have assumed reasoning based in the xenophobia found in Limbaugh logic. Obviously that does not even imply you are xenophobic.

Of course no reasonable person is suggesting population doubling even with unrestricted immigration. Those doubling numbers are also provided by the myths and fears from Limbaugh types.

Of course a massive influx would create problems. The Economist said same. Problems that mean only good things when solved as The Economist also notes. Did Rush logic forget to mention that part - the good part? Of course. Did he forget to mention addressing those problems means only good things? Of course. It promotes his poltiical agenda of preaching to those who 'know by entertaining their fears'.

Are you xenophobic? I don't know, I don't care, I never stated it, and it is not relevant. But you should be asking a question in the last sentence of this paragraph. In the deep south, when your conclusions or actions correspond with others who were overtly racist, then at what point do you question your actions? You may not intend to be racist, you may dislike reacists, and do not regard yourself as racist. But does it matter when your actions correspond with racists? Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?

Now don't do as classicman so often does. Do not read superficially to assume I have called you racist (or xenophobic). Do not entertain your emotions to ignore the statements here. I am intentionally making it easy to come to two radically different conclusions based upon whether you entertain the logic or entertain personal biases (emotions). The 'your' in that previous paragraph is not the same as something else called ZenGum. It was intentionally written so that you might jump to wild conclusions - as Rush Limbaugh supporters do. Or step back, read with greater care, and then grasp an underlying point and the associated questions. Only thing relevant in any of my posts are the facts.

There is a fine line between those who use xenophobia to make conclusions and those who come to the same conclusion but do not intend to be xenophobic. Again I ask the question. Why do you automatically assume a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? The assumption is converted to fact by the xenophobic. Others used same reasoning to ‘know’ Saddam had WMDs. I don't see any facts that say a massive immigration influx is 'destructive'. Somehow the xenophobic have converted ‘problems’ into ‘disaster’. They are completely different. Only emotion to converts problems into something destructive. It is a game that Limbaugh can play with great affect.

Problematic? Of course massive immigration creates problems. So what? Confronting and solving those problems means an even greater nation as proven by this nations history and the point bluntly made by The Economist. We are suppose to learn from history – not rewrite it.

But again, this simple question that Rush disciples do not ask because they automatically believe what they are told: Why is a massive inflow of immigrants is bad? Source of such ‘fact’ comes from those with a ‘them verses us’ mentality. Same intolerants also believed Saddam would conspire to attack the US – when obvious facts said otherwise. But again, they knew Saddam wanted to attack the US because their fears converted wild speculation into facts. Their fears also assume massive immigration is bad – using same speculation declared as fact.

Any assumptions of an “I am xenophobic” suggestion was 100% your assumption. It did not exist in anything I posted; may be posted so that you might make that assumption (to test your ability to separate what was posted from personal assumptions), and is completely contradictory to the purpose of that post. “Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?” Did you apply this fact when reading that post? Actions and intents are two completely different concepts that may coincide or contradict. Did I specifically say ZenGum is xenophobic? Now reread the paragraph that ends with “Which is relevant - your actions or your intents?”

Then ask "Why is a massive inflow of immigrants bad?" when history and the above The Economist quote say otherwise.

[classicman]

tw, so what you are saying is that if, IF,there was an influx of 350,000,000 immigrants into America over 5 years this would be a good thing. Yes I am asking seriously. Since there was no link to your Economist article, I am questioning where the line is drawn. Where do the laws of diminishing return come into play here? How many is too many? Is there such a number? Logic and common sense says that at some point a MASSIVE influx would overwhelm a system not designed for that many people. Food, housing, waste removal, education, employment.... all of these things cannot happen immediately, as you an engineer certainly knows. Please address these issues. I , for one, am very open on immigration.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

What's to stop the United States from doing the same thing to other countries? Nothing but common sense. Most likely any Chinese that came here would love the economic and social freedoms and they would be flying those flags for real.

Would having a half Chinese population be a bad thing? How about half Irish? If enough people immigrated here that opportunity started drying up, they would start to go somewhere else.

More people would mean we'd need more workers to service them and would certainly drive the economy to build housing and more infrastructure. My opinion is the only limit on our immigration should be the desire for others to come here.

No one wants to immigrate to China. Hell hole of pollution and global warming.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

How does diplomatic immunity play into this? On one hand, it shows that some people in this country are not subject to our laws and constitution. On the other hand it shows that to get this immunity, there needs to be a formal accepted agreement constructed.

They must become citizens. Illegal aliens are not citizens of this country, they are criminals.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

About 40% of science and engineering PhDs working in America are immigrants.

They are here on legal visas, granted by the government. Until we get a documentation program for those who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas illegally the others are criminal elements sapping our resources dry from those who are legal and natural born citizens.

[Aliantha]

For one thing, if there were a huge influx of migrants in australia, legal or otherwise, there'd be nowhere for them to live. Already there are many families who have nowhere to live. Increasing the population without having time to build housing would be just plain stupid.

If people are living on the street or camping out or whatever, there'd be increases in crime for starters, and that's not the only problem.

Any socioligist will tell you that overcrowding in any species is likely to lead to tension between groups which obviously we already have enough of in the world.

No, allowing a huge influx of immigrants would be bad for any economy, not to mention the social structure of the community.