The immigration debate is veryproblematic and it's hard to hear a sober analysis of the situation in the media without commentators on ALL sides on the issue going to extremes. Especially where it concerns refugees.

On one side you have nationalism, tinged with outright racism.
They say things like:
-They can't speak English! (or whatever's the native language of the complainer), their ways are different, they should do things like WE do them.
- They're lowlife and don't belong here.
- They should go back to where they came from.
- They're thieves, dishonest, they treat women badly, beat their animals...
- Their religion is evil.
- They take our jobs.
- They take all the government handouts. etc.
These people are mostly of a conservative persuasion, but definitely NOT entirely. People from ALL political colours express these opinions.

On another side the idea is ultimate freedom with little thought on how that could actually work in reality.
There are ideas like:
- Universal freedom of movement everywhere.
- Places with low population should take their fair share.
- All refugees should automatically be accepted into the community no matter what.
- Country borders should be removed...
Progressive liberal minded people, some libertarians and even some conservative people have these ideas

---------------------------------------------
What I find interesting and very disappointing is how much ignorance and lies there is surrounding the issue.
Here's an E-mail I just received from someone I did a graphic design job for last year:

Haven't heard it put this way before, but it's a great analogy.

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back patio and filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.
Then came the shit... It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And other birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit in my own back garden anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be .... quiet, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now let's see..... our government gives out free food,
subsidized housing, free medical care, and free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands.

Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press
one' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than the our Flag are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

If you agree, pass it on; if not, continue cleaning up the shit!

This e-mail had an animated gif of the Australian flag waving on it... And I was frankly shocked and sickened to get it.
All the scary stuff at the bottom isn't true in Australia and will never be likely to be:
-Neither education nor medical care is free here and it's hard to get subsidised housing. The government makes education and medical care cheap, but it is certainly NOT free,
-Illegal immigrants don't come in their thousands to Australia.
-Our taxes haven't gotten much higher for decades and hardly any of it goes to pay for anything used by immigrants or refugees.
- You don't have to press a number on the phone to have your bank speak in English to you. It's the only language they speak.
-Small apartments don't host 5 immigrant families each. The main problem with too many people in houses are our poor aboriginal population and they're NATIVE and it's our fault that situation exists in the first place.
-You don't wait 6 hours to be seen in the emergency ward hat hospitals- I know this for a fact, I was there 3 weeks ago and saw doctors and nurses immediately. It was about 5 minutes wait.
-All classes speak English in government schools here and nothing else.
-Cornflakes only have English as the main language. Products will only include other languages for things like ingredients etc if they're also intended for EXPORT.
-Ironically the ONLY people who wave flags, squawking and complaining in the streets that I've ever seen in Australia are other Australian with Australian flags. ...complaining about immigrants.

It's interesting how the bird analogy is used to make the whole idea of the nationalist chauvinism sound plausible, and then that's followed up with outright lies, exaggerations, and bigotry that is obviously imported from somewhere else. I would bet money that that whole e-mail originated in another country and is being used and adapted by various idiots all over the world.

Nationalism, patriotism, ignorance and racism. They're all tied in together. The entirety of the anti-immigration debate is stupid.

It's also fairly counter-intuitive to say that hospital ques will grow long and all that crap. Immigrants come, some might become doctors, some teacher, whatever. The system will be able to balance itself out naturually to accomidate for everyone, and any immigrants who end up with more blue-collar jobs will just end creating more of a need for jobs above them.

i wasn't really aware austrailia had that much immigration. i think part of the problem in most of the world is people being too lazy to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants and what they mean for the area they move to.

BffSatan
any immigrants who end up with more blue-collar jobs will just end creating more of a need for jobs above them.

this isn't even remotely true. legal immigrants don't demand more higher-ups than non-immigrants. illegals actually demand less because there's no need for legal bookkeeping with them. shuttling people into an area only has a noticeable effect on the amount of workers employed to provide them with necessities in massive quantities, and that scenario results in a higher net unemployment ratio by itself.

Orin J Master

BffSatan
any immigrants who end up with more blue-collar jobs will just end creating more of a need for jobs above them.

this isn't even remotely true. legal immigrants don't demand more higher-ups than non-immigrants. illegals actually demand less because there's no need for legal bookkeeping with them. shuttling people into an area only has a noticeable effect on the amount of workers employed to provide them with necessities in massive quantities, and that scenario results in a higher net unemployment ratio by itself.

I don't that that's necessarily a problem of the actual immigration, illegal or otherwise, rather it's poor governance.
If you have a large population of people living and working in an area, the sensible thing to do would be to legalise their status, not to criminalise them. That way it completely cuts off the industry that thrives on their illegal status and those that make money from them by flaunting the government's laws- paying illegally cheap wages and avoiding tax by hiring illegals.

The very criminalisation of an available resource or commodity (in this case labour), creates big opportunities to make profits from criminal behaviour. With narcotics it makes them much rarer and dangerous to come by so immeasurably more expensive and 100% tax and duty free. With labour it becomes totally tax free and responsibility free- you don't have to pay overtime, health plans, pensions, give holidays, sick days, compensation upon injury, you can fire people for any reason, force them to work extra time, coerce them into doing things they wouldn't normally do... Who benefits most from maintaining the status of that population?
-organised criminals and the sort of wealthy people who think they shouldn't have to pay taxes or worry too much about worker's rights.

Border protection and regulation is a different issue from managing populations of people already IN an area and should be kept seperate. I feel.

I was surprised to get to the bottom of Ozone's first post to find that it was Australia being talked about in the email. All those complaints about immigrants are ones commonly heard here in America from people angry over illegal immigration. I wouldn't be shocked if that email had been making its rounds in America too, with an American flag. Some of those complaints at the email are more true in America. We have bilingual schools in the areas that need it, the occasional multi-family apartment, and "Press '1' for English" on any bank or major corporation we call.

And much like Ozone I think there's a lot of extremist thought and dogma flying around, and the reality falls somewhere in between. We can't let all immigrants in, and we can't keep all of them out.

Immigration is an extremely big topic right now, especially with Arizona's new law just passed (police are being granted the right to arrest and deport immigrants who can't show paper proving their legal immigration status). I can't tell for sure where I stand on the law, but from what I've seen on the news, the loudest people for AND against the law all seem to be slightly misinformed and reactionary.

If I had my way, the only people who should be allowed are people who believe in LIBERTY. I only care about what's inside your head.

If you want a socialist nanny state, there's many other countries out there that are just like that.

Meanwhile, look who can get away with threatening to murder police


Look who can get away with threatening violence

...racism...

On the other hand, it is ALEX JONES who gets called the big bad man. He NEVER threatens violence.

The most he does is encourage people to peacefully protest, put up flyers, make videos, and do boycotts.
http://www.infowars.com/

I am a brown person. I listen to Alex Jones. I play his radio show in the office and most of my coworkers are black.

They all LIKE Alex Jones.

I've attended mini-rallies that are anti-big government. Around 30-40% of those in attendance are non-white. And to top it all, the LEADER of the local anti-New World Order group is SOUTH ASIAN. Then I went to another group, surprise surprise. The leader is ASIAN. Then another one... and the leader is a NATIVE INDIAN.

What racism?

Majority of the people who display a friendly attitude toward our cause... are african, asian, middle eastern, hispanic, etc.

And its the pro-nanny-state-fake-limousine-liberal whites who give us trouble.

Why? The gig is up. Your race-baiting is FAILING MISERABLY. People are standing up and uniting against The New World Order. whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, arabs, christian, muslim, jew, buddhist, atheist, agnostic, hindu, whatever... all standing up and saying WEVE HAD IT.






http://www.reverbnation.com/blackkrishna

Where DO you live anyways Kyupol?

kyupol
Meanwhile, look who can get away with threatening to murder police

lol!

Sorry man, you've been had. Again.
Use your head- if they actually did that. they'd know it would turn everyone against them automatically. ;)

Anyway, just enlarge the image and notice the difference in the pixels around the writing to the rest of the board. Here's a version I saved as a GIF file so it retained the strong difference in pixelisation, but you can easily test it yourself with your original:



And here's a new version I made off the same placard:

:) Awesome work, Ozone.

You know what I find ironic? You'd think Kyupol would be in full support of somebody who wants to kill the police. But it doesn't matter, it's a fake sign after all.

Sure. Lets say that image is fake. I'll give you that.

But that doesn't negate the other things I have posted.

You know what I find ironic? You'd think Kyupol would be in full support of somebody who wants to kill the police.

I dislike the police for their brutality, racism, and overall SCHOOLYARD BULLY attitude.

However, I am also aware that there are good people in the police (these days they seem more like the exception).

And I also do not like to turn the police into martyrs. When you kill cops, the public opinion tends to gravitate towards sympathy towards the police.

If you want to attack police, the best way is to EXPOSE their bad behavior. When it reaches a critical mass, the police will be forced to change their ways.
Example:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/05/04/13819171-qmi.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqDBGmaJF45-4xA1CXCFeBGQPBkQD9FF2SAO0

If the TEA PARTY (or any similar group like wearechange or 9-11 truthers) does something like that, we will see the corporate media harping on about how they are such evil evil racist terrorists.

They are NOT racists. I can personally attest to that. If they were indeed racist, they should have kicked me out just because of my brown skin color. I've been involved with groups similar to the tea party. Not even dirty looks. No treating me different because of my skin color.

kyupol
They are NOT racists. I can personally attest to that. If they were indeed racist, they should have kicked me out just because of my brown skin color. I've been involved with groups similar to the tea party. Not even dirty looks. No treating me different because of my skin color.

I'm not disputing your point because I don't know the people you speak of, but there's nothing racists love more than an Uncle Tom. What better way to not seem like a racist than to parade around tokens of the people you're subjecting?

Orin J Master
i wasn't really aware austrailia had that much immigration. i think part of the problem in most of the world is people being too lazy to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants and what they mean for the area they move to.

BffSatan
any immigrants who end up with more blue-collar jobs will just end creating more of a need for jobs above them.

this isn't even remotely true. legal immigrants don't demand more higher-ups than non-immigrants. illegals actually demand less because there's no need for legal bookkeeping with them. shuttling people into an area only has a noticeable effect on the amount of workers employed to provide them with necessities in massive quantities, and that scenario results in a higher net unemployment ratio by itself.

Firstly, I never said anything about illegal immigrants. Secondly, I never said they demand more higher-ups, they demand the same. You have a larger community then you need more services, you need more services you need more lower paying jobs and if you need more low paying jobs.

Anyway, can we just ignore the crazy and get back to discussing immigration?

(slightly paranoid) Thoughts on immigration in the United States, specifically from Mexico:

Immigrants from Mexico, particularly to the American Southwest, are different from other immigrant groups we’ve absorbed in the past. When people come here from far away lands like Ireland or Nigeria or Japan, they’re separated from their homeland and so they adopt America as their new homeland. They usually have relatively small communities of similar immigrants who speak their language so there is a big push for them to learn the customs and language of the United States in order to advance, and within a generation or two they’re as American as apple pie. Mexicans who move here, especially to the southwest, are still very close to their homeland and have large communities of Spanish-speaking immigrants to link up with. There is little or no real impetus for them to assimilate into American society. What we have already, and will continue to see more of, are large swaths of the population whose culture, language, and national affinity are distinctly Mexican, but they’re living here in the U.S. Over time, say fifty years or so, this could become the defining character of the American Southwest (the “Mexican Cession“ and Texas). It would be a population within the population, with a distinctly foreign culture, not unlike French-speaking Quebec in Canada or, to get a better idea as to what I’m driving at, the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.

It might seem a bit far-fetched for me to cast Mexico as Germany to our Czechoslovakia, but it’s not as crazy as it sounds. Historically, Mexico is the United States’ traditional enemy and rival for dominance of North America. If you’d asked a few hundred years ago whether the center of gravity in our hemisphere was likely to be Mexico City or Washington, D.C., most people might have picked Mexico City. It didn’t turn out that way. We beat them. But that doesn’t mean they’re down for the count. In the long view of things, these issues are never settled permanently and, just as power in mainland Europe shifted from Spain to France, it could swing the other way here in a hundred years or so. Mexico is not going to remain a basket case forever, and will seek to emerge from our shadow. They’re already among the Top 20 global economies and they’re only going to rise higher with time, especially given that they’re going to have lots of something which will be a hot commodity in the not-too-distant future: people. That’s also, by the way, one of the prerequisites for aggressive expansion. And it won’t help the U.S. that a huge chunk of the country is American in name only and would likely favor annexation (remember, Mexico at this point won‘t be an embarrassing stepcousin like it is today; it will be thriving and dynamic, and a viable alternative to the U.S.). It’s the type of national security threat we will never be equipped to deal with.

So… do I actually believe any of that’s going to happen? Yes. History moves with a certain momentum and there’s generally nothing you can do to alter its course once it starts snowballing in a certain direction. So do I think it can be averted through tougher immigration policies? Honestly, no. Again, it’s the momentum of things. Politicians think short-term and the type of draconian measures necessary to maintain cohesion in the U.S. simply aren’t likely to be implementable, and I’m not even sure I’d support them if they were. Because people in general are also short-sighted, and I’m a people too. Optimistically, there’s no telling what our culture will be like a hundred years from now, and by the time any of this becomes a pressing issue no one may even care or notice, for any of a number of reasons. But my guess is, people aren’t likely to change much, and there will be a great fear of Mexican designs to reclaim large tracts of U.S. territory which they’ve always considered stolen. Real or imagined, these fears will manifest themselves in all sorts of ugly ways, from terrorism and pro-Mexican nationalism to racism and general ethnic tensions the likes of which we’ll probably have thought we were beyond by then.

Okay, that’s all I have to say. Just wanted to add my own slightly skewed perspective, even though I likely will be tarred and feathered for it. I don’t really have a concrete policy position on the subject. Immigration is a reality we have to put up with, like it or not, but I think there are long-term consequences further down the road which not too many people today are even thinking about. At least not out loud.

Hawk
:) Awesome work, Ozone.

You know what I find ironic? You'd think Kyupol would be in full support of somebody who wants to kill the police. But it doesn't matter, it's a fake sign after all.

I don't know whether the sign is fake or not, but it's worth pointing out that pretty much all signs will show increased pixelation around the text. I think it has something to do with the blank part being mostly uninterrupted solid color and the text being, well, not. Again, I don't know if the sign is a fake or not, or even see that one lone man's crazy sign proves a point. He could be in a counter-rally, holding up an ironic sign to show his opposition to the immigration supporters. Who knows?

El Cid
I don't know if the sign is a fake or not,

It's so obviously fake it's silly. It took me literally less than 10 minutes to very roughly and quickly mock-up a fake one that looks the same as the original (even though that's a re-encoding of an ALREADY encoded jpeg!). Besides that the content is an obvious joke. You'd have to be either bellow normal intelligence or very, very ideologically driven AND suggestible to believe it.
- Like the sort of people who believe that Jews have horns, and then you actually show them a fake pic of a Jewish man with horns and they go "Finally! Proof!" :)

---------------------------------------
But aside from that...

Your Mexican session theory:
Well, when a country is managed very, very badly, so much so that large portions of its population are basically left to fend for themselves, staved of resources, amenities, investment etc, especially if it's because that part of the population is ethnicity different, then their natural instinct is to seek help elsewhere. THAT of course leads to a severe crackdown by the country that was responsible for their discontent to start with, and then that leads to further issues, violence and war-
-Sri Lanka with its Tamils.
-Turkey and Iraq with their Kurds.
-Israel with their Palestinians. And Palestine before that with their Jews.
-Serbia with their Albanian population in the state of Kosovo.
-Turkey and their Armenian population
-Spain and the Basques...

And so on.
It's always popular to blame the ethnic minority and talk about their ambitions to form separatist states or join up with their traditional mother country, but people always lose sight of why things turned out the way they did. In pretty much all cases those people were driven to be that way, they had no other choice.
The United States is different. You actively try to avoid marginalising entire minorities of people. The US tries to make people PART of itself and they appreciate that.

The German analogy is wrong. All Europe was scattered kingdoms and principalities for millennia. Nationalities were fully mixed and fluid. During the 19th C after the empire of Napoleon had shown the continent what nation building and empire was all about, everyone wanted their own strong nation. Bismark set about building a united Germany out of all those old scattered duchies and things. Eventually the disaster of WW1 caused new borders to be drawn and populations were annexed or moved.
The Germans in the newly created country of Czechoslovakia (and elsewhere) weren't some new unwanted group that had banded together to demand their rights, they were families that had been in those places for hundreds of years of continued settlement.
Whereas the original Mexican population in the US were pretty much moved out after that war... If there were to be another war with Mexico it wouldn't be the same situation as Germany and Czechoslovakia because their isn't the raw wound of a recent defeat with people having a living memory of still being a part of a different country and all that goes with that.

Al that needs to be done is for the US too keep on actively integrating and caring for its citizens, whatever their ethnic background- it's the alternative that leads to wars of secession.

Ozoneocean
It's interesting how the bird analogy is used to make the whole idea of the nationalist chauvinism sound plausible, and then that's followed up with outright lies, exaggerations, and bigotry that is obviously imported from somewhere else. I would bet money that that whole e-mail originated in another country and is being used and adapted by various idiots all over the world.

Undoubtedly. The bird anaolgy is obviously completely made up and most likely never happened to anybody except in a Hitchcock movie, thus serving as the perfect analogy for the birdshit that follows it.

This kind of technique was around when I was a kid, in the form off offensive whatever they used for photocopies in the seventies and I'd bet the same kind of thing is carved into the walls of ancient egyptian tombs and temples. bogus heiroglyphs to start, racist reliefs to follow.

ozoneocean
- They take our jobs.

Derka derb!

...sorry. Couldn't resist.

All right in all seriousness, immigration has always been somewhat of a conflicted opinion for me. I love the idea of being able to move wherever I want to but pause to think when I realize that it means that anyone can do the same (the old issue of having the cake and eating it). I suppose you always end up trusting yourself more then others.

First of all, I believe that a person who wishes to move to a different area, should make attempts to adapt to the indigenous culture, at very least learn the native language. These are the parameters I set for myself and I expect the same of others. Therefore I find the idea that certain immigrants can spend decades living in a foreign country, refusing to adapt to it and speaking a foreign tongue, nothing short of insulting. When people like that move over to a new country and form their own pockets of society, the natives will feel threatened and it will create racial tensions. While this does not apply to all immigrants, we can't deny that these people exist and we certainly can't deny that these are the people who are giving immigrants a bad name. There's no logic in this argument, just feelings. Native people will always feel more privileged then others and thus will not take kindly to having their way of life disrupted by outsiders.

In a perfect world, all borders would be open and we'd be free to live wherever we choose. Problem is, we don't live in a perfect world, hence there are complications. Some countries are arguably more prosperous and others, where the quality of live is noticeably better. If all borders were opened up, it would cause a major population shift where countless of people would go chasing their dreams. The more prosperous countries would suffer from the sudden population spike that would suffocate the system while the poorer countries would suffer a "brain drain" where all the educated people emigrate to the "greener pastures".

America and EU are two examples of "open border nations". In theory, the states in the US are individual nations with a common leadership. They each have their own laws, taxes, police and military force. Each state then abide to federal laws that out trumps state laws along with contributing some of their taxes and manpower to the greater cause. The US government tries to a certain degree to maintain an equilibrium between the states, making sure that none of them drags behind the others. As a result, most people become content about their quality of life and "migration" between the states are rather stable.

EU is kinda like US in the making. Not quite there yet but they're trying. Regardless of whether or not people agree that it should be done, you can clearly see that the open border policy between the member states was a rash decision. Reason: Some of the members are more prosperous then others. Take Poland for example. It was a rather successful country that joined EU in 2004 but when they did, these two things happened:
1) Millions of polish immigrants stormed the more prosperous countries.
2) the population of Poland dropped almost 20%.
It was a problem for Poland and it was a problem for the bigger EU states. Hell, it was even a problem for Iceland who have only 300.000 natives and experienced thousands of polish immigrants. Today polish people are treated like Mexicans are treated in US and Poland is running programs where it is trying to entice these people to move back and fill the hole they left behind.

My personal believe is that a better alternative for the development of EU is that new member states would enter a transitional phase where it is not a full member quite yet and thus would not have open borders to the other member states. Instead the other nations would help bring the fledgling member up to their level. It would need to be done at a pace where EU could only do couple of countries per decade, slowing its expansion to a crawl but the end result would be a far more stable and stronger Europe.

Seems to me there's been virtually no debate in the UK on this.

Labour were/are reflexively against any discussion of the matter, as demonstrated by Gordon Brown's "bigoted woman" comment. LibDems are pro-immigration, and the Tories are scared of being categorised alongside the BNP if they condemn it.

As an issue, it's really not on the British political radar.

Whether or not you want immigrants here or not,

They are ILLEGAL immigrants. They are breaking the law.

Either change the laws or do not let them stay.

I personally think amnesty is absolute crap because it is rewarding illegal behavior. Immigrants are people and deserve the respect that any person does, but a country cannot just let immigration be unregulated.

As for the English issue, this is the primary language of the country. If you go to Japan, you either learn Japanese or get a translator. Sure, you can find people who speak your language, but it is not really fair to expect it.

The whole taking jobs thing is a really vague thing to say. Illegals do kind of mess with minimum wage, though.

It'll continue like it always did. If they get caught, they get deported and can sneak in again. If they get away with it, they get away with it.

Yvain
Whether or not you want immigrants here or not,

They are ILLEGAL immigrants. They are breaking the law.

also talking about the legal ones here, slacknut. try not to allow your confused hate to blind you to what a word actually means.

I'm sure you could have thought of a much more polite and respectful way to tell Yvain that the issue concerns both legal and illegal immigrants, Orin. That's just plain rude.

Just to refute most of the nationalist-favored points that ozone brought up:

-They can't speak English! (or whatever's the native language of the complainer), their ways are different, they should do things like WE do them.

I feel like many other countries share this mentality. We should be one of the few to initiate a more welcoming environment. The USSR did this back in the day dealing a heavy blow to the US and its immigration policies then - turns out it can be very significant.

- They're lowlife and don't belong here.

For Americans this is primarily Mexicans entering the country. Of course they'll be "lowlife," they've come from a poverty-ridden country. They're probably thinking they don't belong in their homeland.

- They're thieves, dishonest, they treat women badly, beat their animals...

I could be wrong here, but at least in my area, the media capitalizes on ethnic crimes. That's why it seems more prevalent.

- Their religion is evil.

Hah, if we're talking Mexicans, they're typically Roman Catholic! Their institutions are usually well-respected in the communities I've lived in.

- They take our jobs.

Fruit picker, farmhand, fast food employee...it's the sad truth, but I don't believe this is considered compromising job availability. Though this comes with exception to the legal immigrant families from Mexico. It turns out that some are in fact searching for similar jobs, yet must be paid minimum wage. So the illegal immigrant that accepts the underhand lower wages lands the job.

- They take all the government handouts. etc.

Actually, I'm more in line with the Clinton policy on this - remove dependency on government programs such as welfare by removing it completely.

Now, the major point I wanted to bring up with this issue is something that I've witnessed personally in my own community. Hailing from around the LA area of California, illegal immigrants are no infrequent faces around here. Quite a few of them end up getting roped into exploitative companies, particularly with the many textile factories found within the metropolis region. These immigrants are desperate enough to seek any form of income, even if inhumane. You may already be aware of the conditions these types of workers undergo.

Yes, it's true that in the US organizations are continuously stamping out such exploitations, but it isn't always enough. Some workers are even known to shy away from undermining an operation in fear of losing what they see as their only potential job. Therefore I present to this debate that are also harsh consequences to allowing illegal immigrants into the country - exploitative employers. It's rather difficult to decide which side is easier to amend, at least for me.

In a geo-political stage where Homogenization is clashing with Nationalism, and age-old institutions are butting heads with modern culture, immigration IS a very touchy subject.

To me and my family America is a wonderful place where any are welcome. In return for acceptance though must come cooperation. Sneaking into a nation really does subvert that nation in fact or principal or both. All persons living in a nation bear the responsibilities of the citizen. Coming illegally is in itself a basic dismissal of those duties. I love the fact that the USA welcomes millions every year and I have no fears of these people. Becoming a citizen and gaining your rights is a beautiful thing. They are exercising those fundamental human rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no reason why somebody should have to sneak in if they are legitimate in their reasons for coming. We have citizenship controls for a reason. To protect us from economic, public safety, and other concerns. Violating a country's immigration controls is in itself a blatant dis-regard for the laws and customs of that nation. Desperation or good intent can't change the fact that you just violated international law. Those rules are there for a reason and if you need to dodge them, then you have a reason to be kept out.

At least in the US though, I think Immigration law does need to be re-written. Ridiculous rules and obsolete rulings prevent great candidates from coming here to contribute, reward entitlement mentalities, are full of unfair preferences and biases, and are oddly weighted based on family ties or working skills. It needs to change. Namely so that current abuses of the law are eliminated and resources can be allocated to help immigrants who need it and place those who don't and chiefly prevent swamping (the sad but pragmatic fact that we can only support a certain population).

Today... I fully agree with Imshard.......

Sorry, I stumbled onto this at Youtube and just had to post it here!



My guess is we'll be seeing more, not less, of this kind of rhetoric in years to come.

For the moment I'm going to disregard the Mexican debate on the basis that I don't know enough about it to be critical or supportive.
However Ozone-ocean addressed Australian immigration, a subject I am very familiar with:

Someone
They can't speak English! (or whatever the native language of the complainer), their ways are different, they should do things like WE do them

A fair point, assimilation is a proven system, it quickly eliminates soical divisions within a generation or two. In fact it was once customary for European immigrants heading for Australia to "give up" on their old culture. They would refuse to teach their children their old tongue and only pass down customs they thought would be universally acceptable (usually catholic ones or cuisine) and was often kept private. Today you may see this as wrong, but it was common and done willingly. Today its very difficult to know if anyone (European) in Australia is German, Italian, Maltese etc in origin without asking them or knowing their family personally. And it worked I might add. Further more these cultural differences are often flash points for conflict in Australian society today. One example of this would be the Skaf case. Their culture influenced the gangs views of Australian society, particularly its women...

Someone
They're lowlife and don't belong here.

I'm going to assume this relates to illegal immigrants for the moment. And yes, I agree with this completely. By fleeing from a "broken state" (war) you are acting in a manner I find both cowardly and irresponsible (of course I will accept your counter argument that their lives are at stake WAR and others); by leaving you are making any effort at reconstruction more difficult for those who stay behind (Sri lankan Tamils) or even
improvement of the state or the defense of your people more difficult. Not only that a lot of these "refugees" maybe hardened war criminals, trying to slip under the radar. In short, not all of theses people will be in these sort of situations that I have gone over and may very well be of honest character, but the problem is that these people make up the minority of the refugees queues into Australia, how do I know? Well for starters how many women do you see in a refugee boat/camp/etc? Not many, and people really fleeing prosecution take their entire family... Not just themselves

Someone
They take our jobs

In Australia we have a legal immigration system (which desperately needs Howard to rearrange it, but we stupidly voted Kevin in didn't we?) which exists purely to plug up gaps in our labour market. Unfortunately it is used and abused by so called "students" who come on the pretense to study things that don't exist and then claim immigration... Regardless the quote above doesn't have much point, so I'll agree with Ozoneocean and call this point moot. (irrelevant).

Someone
They take all the government handouts. etc

Yes they do. They pump out 6+ babies and sit in council housing, on the doll. No I don't care if its a crap house, its supposed to be reserved for Australian people who are down on their luck (or just lazy...unfortunately). Alot of these "refugees" come here because they know they don't have to work and can live a better lifestyle, at the cost of the taxpayer (and the retired). OF course I'd solve this easily with: 1. Green-card equivalent system that requires you to be a full citizen to get unemployment benefit 2. Unemployment benefit only lasts 24(ish) months before it is revoked 3. The government only pays child benefit for your first three children, any more are not supported (supports healthy population growth without to many nasty abuses of the system).

As for your pro points, most have already been picked out but I will go on about this one:

Someone
Places with low population should take their fair share.

. Well lets start with this. Australia has a low population because we don't have the infrastructure to support a large one (over 30 mill). We might be the size of Europe, but most of it is desert and every attempt at getting more water via a desalination plant or more power via a nuclear reactor has been thwarted by our lovable (not) green party. We can't sustain a large population now, and its doubtful if we can sustain one around 40 million any time soon (like 100 years from now) without a significant infrastructure overhaul. Good luck doing that.

And no our taxes haven't gone up in terms of income, they've got sneaker, with things like import taxes and GST. Mainly though, our tax money doesn't go that far, medicare anyone? I don't know about you but my Grandfather had to wait almost 3 months, not for chemotherapy, just to get a hospital bed. I won't go any further on that. I don't know about you but when an old man has cancer, and he's paid his government sanctioned medicare all his life I think the hospitals should have the resources to provide for him. And you got a 5 minutes wait for the emergency ward? Lucky you; maybe you need to remember our swine flu "epidemic" a panic for sure, but it pointed out just how unprepared, overcrowded and underfunded our medical system is. No I don't think its necessarily swamped by Refugees and the like, but it be better we spend money on our hospitals and schools than on freeloaders like them.

That's my rant on illegal immigration done.
Thanks for reading :)

It's a big topic and there are many angles.

Illegal immigration, lets ignore that the defining point is illegal.

There are problems with immigration in England and it does need to get sorted, this isn't to say the immigrants are bad. In many ways they are a great thing but there needs to be a limit and restrictions as no one wants a bigger drain on the countries resources.

I don't have a big problem with people not speaking english as long as they try, they will get there eventually but the sheer amount is causing problems in schools (at least according to the Daily mail) because of the number of children who do not speak english.

I do have an issue with racial and cultural segregation, this just causes more problems.

personally I think the government would do well to severely tighten things for a period of time and get things under control and re evaluate the situation.

I think the whole 'poop out of cannons' issue is a big threat to our way of life and should be dealt with in the coming elections. I say POOP BABY POOP!

Nebraska town of Fremont has voted to ban illegal immigrants from renting apartments and getting jobs in the town. ACLU has vowed to sue.

I don't get this. What legal grounds does ACLU have to stand on? An illegal immigrant technically is in violation of USA law.

How can a landlord who refuses to rent to someone who violated law, be sued??

How can an employer who refuses to employ someone who violated (and is still violating) US law, be sued???

I mean, what EXACTLY does being an illegal immigrant mean, if he/she can enjoy all the rights and privileges of a citizen or permanent resident? This is the emptiest use of the word "illegal" that I've ever heard; about as forceful as "FBI warning: copying this movie is a violation under U.S. law."

mlai
I mean, what EXACTLY does being an illegal immigrant mean, if he/she can enjoy all the rights and privileges of a citizen or permanent resident?

This topic is about any immigrants (legal, illegal, no distinction), and people's attitude towards them.

To address your post- I of course know virtually nothing about immigration law in the US, but I would guess there are jurisdiction and human rights issues involved here:
-The status of a person's citizenship is probably mainly a federal issue, so local groups ((local governments, state governments, whatever) trying to restrict the rights of those human beings are going beyond their remit- taking laws into their own hands based on jingoism.

Citizenship is something conferred by the state, it's also the responsibility of the state to enforce it. To anyone else without that authority, one person is much the same as another (regarding citizenship). Taking it upon yourself to enforce laws regarding citizenship when you have no authority to do so is simply discrimination and and infringement of someone's human rights.
-It would be much the same if you went out and did a citizen's arrest of a jaywalker.

THAT is my poor understanding and flawed interpretation of this aspect of the debate.