Is Immigration Control, unethical?

Is Immigration Control, unethical?

by Liv I show you something fantastic and you find fault. Published on November 29th, 2009, 9:00 am Rift: Life

Treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary, is inherently unethical because such a birthright. cite

Seems to make sense to me. I've heard immigration control referred to as nothing but racism too. If modern countries are going to consider immigration control a necessary evil, then shouldn't we be clear with our conscience what we're doing?

In fact the only thing I can imagine immigration is good for is to separate the less fortunate, poorer countries from the wealthier; however, why then enforce similar immigration policies on similar wealthy countries?

[BecauseHeLives]

They use immigration control to ensure that people who immigrate to the country have something to offer the country moreso than they will be taking from the country. Think of countries as being indivdual homes here. Don't you think its unethical for strangers to come into your home, eat your food, sleep in your bed and use up your medicine cabinet without offering something in return? I'd call THAT behaviour unethical. It is the head of household's (president and lawmakers) reposibility to protect the interests of those people in their home. If they can help another home by sending some food over there or helping them develop their "gardens" then that's great. But its not cool when your neighbors jump the fence in your backyard to climb your apple tree to steal apples and then falls down and gets hurt and THEN expects you to pay their medical bills.

[A Person]

The more fundamental question is what makes it "your" apple tree?

After all isn't that what your ancestors did when they immigrated, except that rather than simply taking the apples they killed of most ofthe residents and herded the survivors into reservations?

[Sir_viver]

If you discovered a homeless man with a cardboard shelter immigrating to your back yard would you have him removed? Or, would you permit him to stay and invite others?

[BecauseHeLives]

The more fundamental question is what makes it "your" apple tree?

After all isn't that what your ancestors did when they immigrated, except that rather than simply taking the apples they killed of most ofthe residents and herded the survivors into reservations?

Its a moot argument.

It wasn't MY ancestors. My grandparents immigrated from Germany. In any case WE are NOT our ancestors. I bought the appleseed with money that I worked for, I planted the apple tree, I took care of the apple tree until it bore fruit. Who has the right to come take what is mine and my family's?

[BecauseHeLives]

If you discovered a homeless man with a cardboard shelter immigrating to your back yard would you have him removed? Or, would you permit him to stay and invite others?

If he tried to take my food, my clothes, and my medicine cabinet I would have him removed. I already have plenty of homeless and hungry "family" members camping out in my backyard. Its my duty to protect the welfare of my "family" before I start looking after somebody elses's family. Would you take food or medicine away from your little girl and give it to somebody who broke into your home illegally?

[A Person]

So your argument is that immigration is theft and therefore unethical, unless it was your grandfather, in which case it's perfectly ethical?

[Liv]

Don't you think its unethical for strangers to come into your home, eat your food, sleep in your bed and use up your medicine cabinet without offering something in return?

Who says they're not offering anything in return? Also for the same privilege to you wouldn't that be worth it?

I think there is some sort assumption that illegal immigrants come here to take advantage of our good will.

Speaking from my own personal obstacles in emigrating that stereotype wouldn't apply. If I could work in Wales right now, I'd immediately bring my current passive income into the country, paying taxes, quickly find jobs, pay a local landlord rent, buy goods and groceries from their economy without public assistance or health-care, though I'd be entitled to it. How is any of that, unethical? Even if I was not able to work, and overstayed on my visa and became illegal, all the above would be true, even up to and including the job though it might be in a pub or under the table rather than traditional. The only possible argument (I can think of) against me being in their backyard, illegally, would be the possibly displacement of a U.K. national in their labor pool by my presence... but I'm quite certain there is a Liv doppleganger displacing myself here in The States at the same time. So again, what you're arguing makes no sense to me?

[BecauseHeLives]

Don't you think its unethical for strangers to come into your home, eat your food, sleep in your bed and use up your medicine cabinet without offering something in return?

Who says they're not offering anything in return? Also for the same privilege to you wouldn't that be worth it?

I think there is some sort assumption that illegal immigrants come here to take advantage of our good will.

Speaking from my own personal obstacles in emigrating that stereotype wouldn't apply. If I could work in Wales right now, I'd immediately bring my current passive income into the country, paying taxes, quickly find jobs, pay a local landlord rent, buy goods and groceries from their economy without public assistance or health-care, though I'd be entitled to it. How is any of that, unethical? Even if I was not able to work, and overstayed on my visa and became illegal, all the above would be true, even up to and including the job though it might be in a pub or under the table rather than traditional. The only possible argument (I can think of) against me being in their backyard, illegally, would be the possibly displacement of a U.K. national in their labor pool by my presence... but I'm quite certain there is a Liv doppleganger displacing myself here in The States at the same time. So again, what you're arguing makes no sense to me?

The differnce here Liv is that you should be "invited" to come into somebody else's house (The UK). Just because you may have some hot dog buns doesn't give you the right to show up at your neighbor's BBQ. You must follow due process: Either be invited or suggest to the host to be invited. If you don't qualify don't look for a hole in the backyard fence.

[BecauseHeLives]

So your argument is that immigration is theft and therefore unethical, unless it was your grandfather, in which case it's perfectly ethical?

AP, interpretation and reality have never mixed very well for you have they? Illegal immigration is unethical. Not sure how bringing somebody's grandfather or great-great-great-great-great grandfather into the mix makes for any type of counter argument. Illegal iimigration is stealing.

[Liv]

The differnce here Liv is that you should be "invited" to come into somebody else's house (The UK). Just because you may have some hot dog buns doesn't give you the right to show up at your neighbor's BBQ. You must follow due process: Either be invited or suggest to the host to be invited. If you don't qualify don't look for a hole in the backyard fence.

But it's only their "house" because someone says it's not mine, or because I acknowledge it's there's. I mean the only reason imaginary borders exists is because some human a) imagines it, and b) some other guy acknowledges it's there. In the case of physical property, you would be physically taking something from them... but in immigration, what are you taking? Some imaginary thought? Some concept that because you stand on one side of the line you're Welsh, on the other your English (or Mexican, & English)?

I mean Carowinds is built on two states, but you don't pay to go to both the parks! (There's some logic for ya!)

[A Person]

So your argument is that immigration is theft and therefore unethical, unless it was your grandfather, in which case it's perfectly ethical?

AP, interpretation and reality have never mixed very well for you have they? Illegal immigration is unethical. Not sure how bringing somebody's grandfather or great-great-great-great-great grandfather into the mix makes for any type of counter argument. Illegal iimigration is stealing.

You didn't specify 'illegal' before. But either way you make the assumption that immigrants ('illegal' or otherwise) take from society, an assumption that has been shown to be wrong repeatedly. Indeed immigration is largely responsible for America's wealth.

We know illegal immigration may be illegal, the question is whether making it illegal is unethical.

No doubt the occupants of North America considered European immigrants to be 'illegal'. Because restrictions were slacker or non-existent when your ancestors immigrated does that make it any more or less ethical?

"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!"

But not any more.

[BecauseHeLives]

You didn't specify 'illegal' before.

If you had read the analogy in my first post you would have read "illegal" into it.

But either way you make the assumption that immigrants ('illegal' or otherwise) take from society,

Would you care to explain how any immigrant (without exception) doesn't take soemthing?

an assumption that has been shown to be wrong repeatedly.

It's not like you to not show some facts.

Indeed immigration is largely responsible for America's wealth.

So was slavery.

We know illegal immigration may be illegal,

Let's not be ambiguous here. It IS illegal. Duh!

the question is whether making it illegal is unethical.

No its not. Its whether people have the inate right to go live whereever they want and take whatever they want without consent.

No doubt the occupants of North America considered European immigrants to be 'illegal'. Because restrictions were slacker or non-existent when your ancestors immigrated does that make it any more or less ethical?

You have no point.

"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!"

But make sure you come legally.

[BecauseHeLives]

The differnce here Liv is that you should be "invited" to come into somebody else's house (The UK). Just because you may have some hot dog buns doesn't give you the right to show up at your neighbor's BBQ. You must follow due process: Either be invited or suggest to the host to be invited. If you don't qualify don't look for a hole in the backyard fence.

But it's only their "house" because someone says it's not mine, or because I acknowledge it's there's. I mean the only reason imaginary borders exists is because some human a) imagines it, and b) some other guy acknowledges it's there. In the case of physical property, you would be physically taking something from them... but in immigration, what are you taking? Some imaginary thought? Some concept that because you stand on one side of the line you're Welsh, on the other your English (or Mexican, & English)?

I mean Carowinds is built on two states, but you don't pay to go to both the parks! (There's some logic for ya!)

Tell ya what Liv. Sign over the domain name for this site over to me then we'll talk about about your idea of physical property, ok? I don't know why you think that greensboring.com actually belongs to you. What gives you that right??

BTW... when you go to Carowinds you are paying for both states. The revenue and taxes are divided up. You just pay one price to make it simpler.

[A Person]

If you had read the analogy in my first post you would have read "illegal" into it.

You expect me to 'interpret' your posts? If you meant 'illegal' then say 'illegal'. You're not God nad your posts aren't the Gospel to be conveniently interpreted

Would you care to explain how any immigrant (without exception) doesn't take soemthing?

How about by earning and buying what they need.

It's not like you to not show some facts.

You really are lazy.

Immigrants, both legal and illegal, continue to be attracted to the United States and its opportunities. According to the U.S. Census, in 1990, the number of immigrants was estimated at 28 million. Fourteen years later that number increased to 32 million. Most of the 32 million immigrants are Hispanic with Asians as the second largest cohort. In a report published by the CEA, or Council of Economic Advisers, immigrants were found to positively contribute to the U.S. economy. The data indicate that immigrants contribute more than $30 billion in income for American workers (U.S. born). In terms of innovation per capita, immigrants in the U.S. beat the U.S. born workers. A greater number of immigrants start up businesses compared to native born Americans; their start up pace is estimated to be 40% greater. Other reports indicate that immigrants had a lower probability of ending up in prison and committing crimes, as compared to individuals born in the US. The CEA report also found that immigrant workers in the United States yield a greater output. Immigrants play a role in the country’s macroeconomic growth and their taxes help increase public budgets. The study found that on average, immigrants and their offspring contribute nearly $80,000 more in tax revenue compared to natives.

Its whether people have the inate right to go live whereever they want and take whatever they want without consent.

Once again you equate immigration with theft. Projecting again?

But I'm surprised you haven't referred to your only source of morals

Lev 9:33-34 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt

[BecauseHeLives]

The economic cost of illegal immigration: http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_ ... costs.html

Its not even close to what is contributed by illegals and what they absorb (or send back to their home countries). The USA is being raped.

[A Person]

What is it with the right wing and rape?

[Liv]

Tell ya what Liv. Sign over the domain name for this site over to me then we'll talk about about your idea of physical property, ok? I don't know why you think that greensboring.com actually belongs to you. What gives you that right??

BTW... when you go to Carowinds you are paying for both states. The revenue and taxes are divided up. You just pay one price to make it simpler.

Hmmmm, what wondrous and new direction would BHL take Greensboring if he was at the helm????????????

That said.... There's still something physical about domain names. It's not imaginary. It's data. It's something I can see, and interact with. Borders are completely imaginary things unless someone adds a wall or a fence which makes them tangible; but even then, that "border", that "idea" that make me "this" and them "that" is only made tangible because someone recognizes that they are "them" and we are "us". One could change this imaginary border with only a change of their mind. I don't see how it's ethical to treat people differently because of this mentality. Furthermore, I don't see any problem with someone becoming apart of the "others", nor see it as theft.

Americans seem to have no problem with laying claim to their European roots in their ancestry but love to argue the only way to live in America is to not come to this country the same way our families did. I rather not digress in such a way that would do an injustice to my argument, but what you're saying is if you could go back and stop your ancestors, and hold them to the same "ethics" you claim to apply to immigration today, then it would be likely, a) you wouldn't exist, or b) if you did, you wouldn't be an American yourself.

[BecauseHeLives]

Tell ya what Liv. Sign over the domain name for this site over to me then we'll talk about about your idea of physical property, ok? I don't know why you think that greensboring.com actually belongs to you. What gives you that right??

BTW... when you go to Carowinds you are paying for both states. The revenue and taxes are divided up. You just pay one price to make it simpler.

Hmmmm, what wondrous and new direction would BHL take Greensboring if he was at the helm????????????

That said.... There's still something physical about domain names. It's not imaginary. It's data. It's something I can see, and interact with. Borders are completely imaginary things unless someone adds a wall or a fence which makes them tangible; but even then, that "border", that "idea" that make me "this" and them "that" is only made tangible because someone recognizes that they are "them" and we are "us". One could change this imaginary border with only a change of their mind. I don't see how it's ethical to treat people differently because of this mentality. Furthermore, I don't see any problem with someone becoming apart of the "others", nor see it as theft.

Americans seem to have no problem with laying claim to their European roots in their ancestry but love to argue the only way to live in America is to not come to this country the same way our families did. I rather not digress in such a way that would do an injustice to my argument, but what you're saying is if you could go back and stop your ancestors, and hold them to the same "ethics" you claim to apply to immigration today, then it would be likely, a) you wouldn't exist, or b) if you did, you wouldn't be an American yourself.

Borders are very physical. I can see them on maps and I can see lots of them through google maps. They are not imaginary. I'd like to see the expression on your face if you came home and there was a panhandler sitting on your couch watching TV and eating your food. Would you call the police if he refused to leave?

[A Person]

like to see the expression on your face if you came home and there was a panhandler sitting on your couch watching TV and eating your food. Would you call the police if he refused to leave?

Once again you equate immigration with theft

A realistic scenario is finding that your neighbour's house has been sold to a person working hard to support his family in the face of ridiculous but hateful sllander like yours. Immigrants are less likely than native born Americans to be panhandlers or theives.

Coming to America, getting a job, earning money, buying things. How will America survived being raped like that?

[BecauseHeLives]

like to see the expression on your face if you came home and there was a panhandler sitting on your couch watching TV and eating your food. Would you call the police if he refused to leave?

Once again you equate immigration with theft

A realistic scenario is finding that your neighbour's house has been sold to a person working hard to support his family in the face of ridiculous but hateful sllander like yours. Immigrants are less likely than native born Americans to be panhandlers or theives.

Coming to America, getting a job, earning money, buying things. How will America survived being raped like that?

Once again, you still don't realize (even after several corrections) I am discussing illegal immigration. I believe this entire thread was posted because Liv cannot legally immigrate to the UK.

[Sanjuro]

Once again, you still don't realize (even after several corrections) I am discussing illegal immigration. I believe this entire thread was posted because Liv cannot legally immigrate to the UK.

For what its worth, I read "illegal" into your point but thanks for clarifying it anyway. Also, I agree with pretty much everything you said here.

Illegal immigration not only puts a strain on society, but can foster a culture of abuse for the immigrants themselves.

[A Person]

Once again, you still don't realize (even after several corrections) I am discussing illegal immigration.

My comments still apply (probably even more strongly)

Illegal immigrants (typically) work hard and keep on the right side of the law. A citizen might be punished for a mnor crime by a fine, an illegal immigrant by loss of livlihood and deportation. To characterise them as thieves and panhandlers is dishonest. They pay into social programs and pay their taxes but are in most cases prevented from benefiting from them.

I had an illegal immigrant reporting to me at one point. He had been hired by the US division before I joined the company and was well liked by the divisional VP. He was a white South African and both he and his wife were holding down good jobs on expired visitor's visas and their children were enrolled in schools. They could only apply to renew their visas from their home country and knew if they ever left the country they would be denied readmission - and probably would not get a renewal, since although he was a good worker his skills as a VB programmer were commonplace. After six years his application for citizenship was accepted. So tell me was he panhandling and stealing for six years? What difference occurred after he got his citizenship - other than he stopped worrying about getting a speeding ticket?

I agree with Sanjuro that the biggest problem is that illegals are vulnerable to exploitation and frequently are. Employers know that they are hard workers who can be threatened with deportation if they fail to perform so they often have to work for low wages in unhealthy and dangerous jobs.

Liv's point is that the distinction between legal and illegal is arbitrary and strangely it's the right wing free-marketeers who oppose the free mobility of labor that existed only a few decades ago. Imagine - if people were free to move to whichever country best matched their lifestyle the US would be free of those leftish, homo, draft dodging commies and could become the Christian theocracy you want it to be. And Liv could be with the hippy Welsh sheep shaggers.

[A Person]

Borders are very physical. I can see them on maps and I can see lots of them through google maps. They are not imaginary. I'd like to see the expression on your face if you came home and there was a panhandler sitting on your couch watching TV and eating your food. Would you call the police if he refused to leave?

How about if you came home, found that an illegal immigrant had set up house in your basement. You ask him to leave and he pushes $20 under the door. You take it and tell him he must still leave. He says he's now paid you rent and doesn't have to leave. You try to give him the $20 back but he refuses to accept it and goes on living in your basement, pushing $20 bills under the door every month - which you ignore.

Is this reasonable? Is this right?

Do you recognise the analogy?

[BecauseHeLives]

Borders are very physical. I can see them on maps and I can see lots of them through google maps. They are not imaginary. I'd like to see the expression on your face if you came home and there was a panhandler sitting on your couch watching TV and eating your food. Would you call the police if he refused to leave?

How about if you came home, found that an illegal immigrant had set up house in your basement. You ask him to leave and he pushes $20 under the door. You take it and tell him he must still leave. He says he's now paid you rent and doesn't have to leave. You try to give him the $20 back but he refuses to accept it and goes on living in your basement, pushing $20 bills under the door every month - which you ignore.

Is this reasonable? Is this right?

Do you recognise the analogy?

The analogy is flawed. It wasn't me that took the $20. As well, he broke into my house and ate all my salsa.