posted
The Rules: One of the participants will be asked a question, they’ll then have up to 500 words in which to respond. The other participant will then have 200 words to rebut, and ask their own question of their opponent, to which he/she will have 100 words to respond to. This process will continue four times, alternating between participants. At the end, each debater will have 500 words to conclude.
For the observers: We welcome you to get involved in this debate, follow it, post threads about it, whatever you wish, but please keep any extraneous comments off of this thread. This thread should contain only the debate, at least until it is finished. Thank-you!
By virtue of a coin toss, Lyrhawn will be first, Lyrhawn: your proposal to limit immigration in the face of the United State’s inability to handle all of the incoming foreigners will require a screening process of some kind. How do you make sure that such a process isn’t discriminatory?
First of all, there needs to be a stricter cap on immigration, once that number is whittled down to something more manageable, we can set about setting up the rules to divvy up the spots available. A quarter of those should go to desperate third world nations, but in no particular order. I think country of origin should be left off of the immigration forms, that way those in charge of deciding who is accepting would be unable to choose one way or the other based on any form of racial or national discrimination.
Second, the main determining factor for the other three fourths of the people will be their education and health really. If they are going to be a drain on the system, they won’t be accepted, if they will contribute to America they will be at the top of the list. Following this system, it doesn’t matter if they are black, white, Asian, old, young, male, female, none of that matters. It is all about ability.
I think a provision should also be made to make sure that stable families are kept together. It’s destructive to a family to send one family member here to work for money to be sent back home, let the entire family come here to keep them together, to keep the family stable, and to help give them all new roots and jobs.
On the whole though, the immigration process is to a point, meant to be discriminatory. Not like it was in the 20’s, when immigration from China, Africa and Eastern Europe was limited to a hundred people maximum. It isn’t meant to discriminate on a racial basis, but rather on the basis of who you are, what you know, what you do, what your skills are, what your history is. America is a family of racial diversity, and I would never want to disrupt that fabric.
Every system has kinks, and I’m not saying that mine won’t as well. But I think any problem with it would be small, and would be easily fixed after some trial and error.
PS. Sorry I'm so late, my internet has been down all morning.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn's proposal, on the face of it, certainly simplifies our immigration policies drastically. However it doesn't address the question, except by implication. Lyrhawn's method would be just as prejudicial as any other sort of immigration restrictions that have existed. It simply isn't offensive to our current sensibilities. It accepts the same sort of assumptions that were made in the 1920s, 1890s, 1840s, etc. Even without race listed, it's even shown in studies concerning employment opportunities that people discriminate based on name alone; I see no reason that this wouldn't also occur in the "3/4s" part of the proposal. Further, it is naive, sounding pleasingly simple now, but when implementing it there would be all sorts of exceptions made (what about natural disasters, categorical persecution, even systemic obstacles in the origin nations emigration proces making it harder to re-apply, or apply to begin with). In 20-30 years, there's no guarantee that system will be any simpler, or more fair than the current one.
The flaw is assuming that restrictions are valid in and of themselves. Restrictions are best when handling exceptions, not, in my opinion, when applied generally. My question to Lyrhawn is how will the process remain streamlined?
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn’t have to last for very long. This particular plan for immigration isn’t meant to be permanent, just a plan for the next 5-10 years or so, until the country it back on its feet. I see no reason why names, like nations of origin, need to be on the form given to whoever chooses the actual immigrants. There can be two databases, one with all the information, and one that is used just to choose. Also, as you say this system does cater to our present day sensibilities, but how is the present system any different? Certainly there could be some sort or provision made for a certain number allowed to come here in the case of an emergency, but I see no reason why someone needs to leave their country when a natural disaster erupts, that is part of what the UN and Red Cross is for. Furthermore, other than invasion, I don’t really see how we are going to make it any easier for people to leave their country if their government is standing in the way. Many of the problems you are addressing already exist in the current system, they aren’t any worse in mine.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The next question is for you, Bokonon: in your plan for immigration laws, how do you propose to deal with the incoming poverty, the lack of recources and space and drain on the economy that this immigration causes?
posted
Honestly, the answer is that there will be some turmoil involved. There will be long-time citizens of this country, most of them poor or middle class, who will lose their jobs. Of course, this can be ameliorated somewhat by not completely opening the borders at once, but creating a plan to gradually, yet definitively, move to open borders. Increase funding for retraining, lower the minimum wage; these are small steps that could make existing citizens more competitive.
Ultimately though, we have to reduce restrictions... It's the restrictions that cost current citizens jobs right now. When illegal immigrants will work for next to nothing because of fear of deportation, that takes jobs from citizens, they just aren't counted in any systematic way. Eventually, if you have any sort of belief in the free market, you have to believe that the market will correct itself. Any attempt to really regulate the consequences will cause more problems than it solves. However the most likely fallout can be anticipated and temporary relief can be provided.
People are the most important resources for any economy. From them, everything else is created. As such,they should be welcomed, cheered, because like finding a new vein of gold, or a heretofore unknown oil field, they will extend, not strain, build, not destroy, our nation's future.
The first step to any truly open immigration policy is to allow those who want to work, want to contribute, to come and live and work and provide, for themselves, and the rest of us.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You honestly think this is the best thing for America? Millions are already out of work here, and those who make minimum wage barely have enough to survive, and are living on or below the poverty line. You want to tell them they will lose their jobs, or that they might have to take a pay cut when they are already struggling, and this so someone from another country can come here to prosper?
I don’t think it is selfish to say “America First,” I’m American, I care more about my neighbor than I do someone living ten thousand miles away, as I think all Americans should. Lowering the minimum wage is perhaps the most ludicrous thing you have suggested. Of course people in China and India can live on less than minimum wage, food and housing doesn’t cost there what it costs here. America is massively in debt, our energy policy is in shambles, our military is in the middle of retooling, there’s corporate corruption and we pretty much can’t pay our bills. And you think this is the perfect time to throw open the gates and let everyone run free? Shouldn’t we wait to make sure that all AMERICANS have the benefits of living here before we start trying to spread those rights to other country’s citizens?
Those were the rhetorical questions, so here’s the real one: You want to lower the minimum wage and flood the country with cheap labor, what precisely, in a country with a $400 billion deficit, are you planning to do for the perhaps millions of Americans who would no longer be able to survive on what they make?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Side Note: I'm leaving for work now. I'll be back around 10:30pm later tonight. So take your time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firstly, with the cheaper labor, things become more affordable. Secondly, the minimum wage, in part, ensures there us always a percentage unemployed. Economists and some government officials have said as much... To them the economy is "overheated" when 3 out of 100 people are out of work. Overheated is a bad term to them. The people who want to work, or have jobs (the first beneficiaries of my more open plan) would provide more tax income and services and goods to us all.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Illegal immigration always has been and always will be a problem. The US border with Canada is the largest undefended border in the world, but it is still monitored. The US/Mexican border needs the same sort of protection. Satellites could be tasked to scan the border to check for illegal crossings. The same infrared scanners and laser tripwires that crisscross the American/Canadian border could be employed on the much smaller American/Mexican border. The staff that patrols the border should be likewise upgraded, and more permanent fixtures put in place to deter would be illegal immigrants, be they walls, trenches, or whatever.
The Department of Homeland Security is already putting more stringent rules in place to check passports at US entry points, which I believe will keep anyone from trying to sneak in via Canada or through pleasure cruises in the Caribbean. There is also technology being researched and tested right now using blimps with scanning gear to terrain mapping that many experts believe could be adapted both to scan airways for illegal flights into the country, and to check the ground for illegal movements.
None of this is extreme, it’s the way it should have always been to begin with. We’ve been lax all this time, too much so. It’s time we got serious about our border security. I still think that provisions should be made for seasonal labor. Some Mexicans should be allowed into the country to do farm labor if they wish, seasonal work, since first of all most Americans don’t want to do it anyway, and second it will give jobs to people who need it. But they should leave the country when the labor is done, and they should be tracked while they are in the country. That way they won’t become illegal immigrants as well.
As far as Latin immigrants on rafts, the US Navy and US Coast Guard have done a decent job of turning back these rafts over the past decade. More should be done to bolster the ranks of the Coast Guard in this respect. They too are woefully understaffed. President Bush’s 2006 Budget includes funds for the creation of nine new Coast Guard vessels, some of these should be tasked to patrol the Gulf and the Western US sea lanes.
Perhaps if we cut down on the massive influx of illegal immigrants, and made an effort to send back those who are already here, then we could make more provisions and room for those that actually try to get in the legal way. And one can hardly argue with the fact that this will make us a much safer and secure nation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only true way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal. It may be an impossible ideal, but I believe it is a better notion than to create a Fortress America. You allow people into the country, to work, live, even pay taxes, and you will get much less resentment and danger from possible immigrants. Throw in cameras, trip wires, flotillas on the high seas, combined with byzantine regulations and requirements to legally immigrate, and you provide ample opportunity for people to find a reason to hate you, and look for ways to take you down.
Immediate safety is useless if it requires a constant danger. Better to go directly to the cause and relieve the danger, in my opinion. What are we saying, if we construct "walls, trenches, or whatever"? That freedom is only inalianable if you were born in the USA?
I'd ask Lyrhawn that if you are so worried about the economy and finding curent citizens jobs, where are you going to get the money to fund you recommendations?
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now who is being naïve? Perhaps if we made theft and kidnapping legal too, we’d have a massive drop in crime in America. Legalizing something that is bad for you doesn’t make the problem go away. Throw open the borders and millions will flood this country, and we can’t handle millions. And how is that any different than what other nations do? You set laws, you only have so much room and you make those that you can handle feel welcome, but oh, sorry, the rest want in too? They might hate us if we don’t let them in? Well then by all means, who cares about general safety and the right to rule our own borders, let’s put out the welcome mat and see what happens!
What we’re saying by protecting America, and by reinforcing ridiculously unsecured borders, is that living in America means living in safety. What are we saying to people if we say “sorry, your country sucks, don’t bother trying to fix it, just run away.” America will become the land of those who ran away. How do you think hostile governments will feel about us then?
To pay for it, I’d do what the President should have done when he started the war in Iraq, raise taxes. Americans are ridiculous when it comes to taxes. We want a military, we want to be safe, we want free everything, but we don’t want to pay for any of it. Tax breaks for the rich only stimulate the economy if the rich turn right back around and open a business and start hiring people. Which is the exception, not the rule. Besides, any rich person who got THAT big of a tax cut was already rich enough to do it anyway. I wouldn’t raise taxes on the poor or the middle class, but the wealthy. Not dramatically, just enough to pay the bills. Rolling back Bush’s tax cuts alone would probably pay for it.
I’m honestly floored that you think the solution to the problem is to open the doors and greet immigrants with candy and hugs. It’s dangerously naïve.
Sorry, obviously that was over 100 words, but I had to say what I had to say.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bokonon, this last one is for you. If we open the doors of America to unrestricted, or significantly less restricted immigration, what will happen to the rising population of illegal immigrants who can neither vote, nor be properly taken care of by the law or social services?
posted
Part and parcel to the loosening of immigration restritions would have to be an attempt to legitimize" current illegals, particularly those with jobs. They would be issued temporary EINs, and they and their employers would then have to comply with tax laws. There would have to be some negotiation in whether the minimum wage would immediately apply; although it would be my desire to make it so, I also fear that this would just cause these people/companies, having already shown a propensity for illegal hiring practices, to continue to hire illegally.
Of course, just because they would be in our country doesn't mean that they would be citizens. I have no problem with having citizenship requirements to participate in US political life; I do feel, however, that we need to make it more streamlined (which is not automatically _faster_). I think a large part of the problem referred to in this question is that a majority of those illegal immigrants who put strain on our social and law enforcement do so because of the very nature of their situation. They are coming here because even at illegal wage levels, they can make more than in their country; often they then send as much as they can to their families. America is exceedingly wealthy compared to these people, they won't stop trying to come no matter how many trenches and fences you build. If you remove legal restrictions on those who are working, they won't go to the ER at higher (and more expensive) rates. A large influx of legal and tax-paying labor could lower costs on healthcare, as they might actually pay in to help defray costs.
Similarly, they'd be covered by workplace safety laws.
A side effect of more open borders would mean that if someone did come across without "checking in", we could apply much stronger penalties, since the likelihood of them being in this country for nefarious reasons would be higher. With a simpler system there would be little incentive to sneak in as opposed to registering, which, coincidentally would make it easier to track potential security issues.
PS- Sorry for the late response, been busy today.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How could anyone hire illegally if everyone is legal now? What exactly are the details of your plan? You want millions upon millions of people to be allowed to come into the country but so far have offered few details on how this process would occur. My plan is temporary, yours is just scary in its scale.
I think you are also ignoring the fact that many illegal immigrants don’t use the healthcare system because they are afraid of being sent back to their homes. They don’t go to ERs, they don’t take a lot of medications, or take less to spread it out, or they sell it. You’re ignoring huge costs this will bring in, and are trying to explain it all away with the taxes these potential minimum wage earners would pay. They won’t pay enough in taxes to make up for what they will cost. This means increased strain on social services, police, fire and EMS services, hospitals are already overflowing in many cities and now you propose flushing cities with an influx of citizens.
And I still don’t agree with your argument that just because they are tenacious, and will try to come here illegally, we should just give up and welcome them in. That’s irresponsible. This isn’t going to lower the cost of healthcare, it will skyrocket, and the taxes they pay will make a small dent in the budget. And this is only going to make it that much more likely that people with negative intent will get across the border. All they have to do is sign up and they are on their way! Hell, terrorists could flood the country by the hundreds! We can hardly keep out Arabs, that’d be racist wouldn’t it? And you would never know. And since you oppose ANY sort of security measures for the border, and for that matter openly scoff at my suggestions, there is now NO boundaries to stop illegal drug runners. I suppose we should legalize crack too, that’d stop the drug trade wouldn’t it?
Likewise, what are you going to do about the illegal operations this policy will create. Already around the world, people are kidnapped and sent to whorehouses by the thousands because they are tricked into it, thinking they are going to better countries. How will you stop kidnappers from sailing into poor areas of third world nations and saying “Want to come to America?” and then disappearing them away to sexual slavery? If you think it won’t happen, you’re ignorant of what already exists in the world. Not saying that you ARE, but if you don’t believe it’s a possibility, you are woefully naïve.
Summary and question: Low paying jobs these immigrants would have are not going to make up for the great costs they will put upon the nation. You have provided absolutely zero funds or ideas for border security, and seem to support eliminating most forms of it, thus making our nation less safe. There’s so many things I want to ask I almost don’t know what question to go with, but I’ll try it from a security stand point, since you don’t seem willing to budge on the economic consequences. How are you planning to make provisions for security, when anyone from anywhere can now come to this nation, how do you propose we keep this nation safe from foreign insurgent who basically have an open door and a welcome mat to contend with? Second, how will you deal with the international person trafficking this will result in?
Again, sorry I KNOW it's too long. But I feel I need to make my point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I say open borders I don't mean unobserved borders. We'd head toward more open immigration slowly, with pilot programs, to measure the efficacy of any open-border plan.
At the least, there would have to be registration at the border. By registering, it would make it easier to show if they actually have been working, and easier to track them down if they have shown to do anything illicit. For that subset who will always try and avoid such things, there would be pressure from those legally registered workers, since the illegals would now be hurting them more directly. There would be more cooperation, not less, with law enforcement, in my opinion.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I'll point you all to what Katarain said in the Commentary Thread, that pretty much sums up a lot of my point very succinctly.
My feeling is that there are too many problems in America that need to be fixed before we can look to such a huge problem outside our own borders. My opponent wants eventual unrestricted immigration. Perhaps someday that will be feasible. But my plan is for a temporary and immediate vast reduction in immigration. He speaks of immigrants like they will even solve some of our problems, which I believe to be wishful thinking.
Poverty in America in some cases is just as bad as in other countries. By letting in that many immigrants, we are saying as a country that we don't care about our own. Give me your poor, your tired, yes, I still believe that. But before we can make that happen, we must make sure that we haven't forgotten our own tired and poor. Inner cities in America need to be fixed, the tax code needs to be fixed to be more fair. To flood the country with immigrants before it is fixed is like launching a ship to sea that is full of holes. The ship will sink.
I do care about the rest of the world, I think we should make an active effort to fix up their countries where they are, but not just to transplant them all here. America isn’t like a Mary Poppins bag, with infinite space, and resources. We have our limitations and our problems, and to brush those under the rug is irresponsible to the people that are here.
My opponent’s plan has too many holes in it, and not enough details. Gradual open immigration for the rest of all time. That’s extremely vague. I’m not saying I want to create a fortress America, with fortifications and gun towers to pick off infiltrators. I’m saying I want a safer America, I want an America where every American FEELS as equal as they are legally. No one gets left behind, no one. Before we start picking up the slack in other countries, we clean house, fix our own backyard.
If at some point in the future we are secure, and stable, and the destitution in America is fixed. Then I would be open to more immigration. I don’t think that our country is for Americans alone, we are a nation of immigrants and should continue that legacy. What I suggest is a pause, a brief moment in history for America to stop, put an “out to lunch” sign on the door, and take care of itself. When we’re good, the door opens again, and not only will we feel better as a nation, we will be much more able to take care of people that want to come here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that working toward more open borders is in line with both our nation's ideals of freedom, it also adheres to our support of a generally free market economy. On one level, labor is an economic resource, and probably the most regulated left in global economy. Opening borders would bring labor out of the 16th century and into the 21st century. Similarly, if you believe liberty is an inalienable right, then for those who wish to participate in our system, working like all the rest of us, how can you deny that person, merely because they weren't fortunate enough to be born in our country?
Our first step should be to legitimize illegal _workers_. They already get various benefits, depending on the state. They also send most of their money back to their home country for their families. So lets allow them to work, remove the fear of deportation, and tax their earnings like any other worker (that includes the fact that their employer will have to pay a payroll tax for them).
By opening up the system, rather than millions of undocumented workers trying their hardest to stay hidden out fear, confusing and obstructing law enforcement from finding the real Bad Guys, they will be registered. This will _increase_ our security because current undocumented workers would have no need to hide, and they would therefore be easier to track. Those that don't register can be considered with more suspicion, and registered workers would have an incentive to bring these folks to justice, since they would be costing legally registered workers jobs.
Our second step should be to open up our borders to those who have jobs already lined up in our country, and to make it easier for those who wish to find a job here to go searching for jobs that our own companies can't fill. Our economy would be more efficient, and the goodwill generated since these foreign nationals would have a vested interest in this nations fortunes would provide dividends in our foreign policy.
My opponents system is more of the same, a "temporary" solution that has no distinct measurements of when it can be loosened. What qualifies our nation as being healthy enough to allow immigrants? The position is ultimately conservative, in a real sense, because it hopes to conserve the wealth we have currently, rather than trying to attempt to explore ways to create wealth. It takes the xenophobic stance that immigrants are the problem, rather than the solution they have been historically for our economy. It legitimizes another sort of prejudice based solely upon the accidents of birth, rather than trying to leverage the abilities of those that would come here to improve themselves.
Opening the borders are consistent with the national values we project to the world. It creates an environment where other nations have a vested interest in our nation's well-being. It helps to more clearly dilineate those that would try to sneak into our country to harm it (which could still happen under my opponent's position), and would ease the tracking of those who would enter using the more open system. Instead of miserly, clumsily, attempting to big the good apples from the bad (a fruitless endeavor I believe), it would allow as many good honest folks in as wished to help build our nation.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank-you very much to the participants for this debate we've had. I hope we all came away with something, or at least had a good time. The thread is now open to anyone.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
