• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

In Praise of Illegal Immigrants

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Hence my comments about t he deliberately
deceitful nature of presenting a set of facts
carefully trimmed to meet the needs of the poster's
agenda.
A huge part of the problem with this issue is the enormous complexities, which makes it easy (almost unavoidable) to support almost any agenda.
The very term "illegal alien" is extremely vague.
1) highly educated Indian who overstays a student visa because he keeps getting lucrative job contracts designing software.
2) Mother of 2 young children fleeing the Honduran hit squads that murdered her husband.
3) Young rural Mexican dude who wants to better provide for his family than anything he could possibly do in his hometown.
4) Drug dealer who is running from the Mexican police.

All of those are "illegal alien". But lumping them together is kinda stupid.
Tom
 

Audie

Veteran Member
A huge part of the problem with this issue is the enormous complexities, which makes it easy (almost unavoidable) to support almost any agenda.
The very term "illegal alien" is extremely vague.
1) highly educated Indian who overstays a student visa because he keeps getting lucrative job contracts designing software.
2) Mother of 2 young children fleeing the Honduran hit squads that murdered her husband.
3) Young rural Mexican dude who wants to better provide for his family than anything he could possibly do in his hometown.
4) Drug dealer who is running from the Mexican police.

All of those are "illegal alien". But lumping them together is kinda stupid.
Tom

Totally agree.

You didnt actually say anything about deliberately
selecting statements that support a particular pov,
but I guess it is obvious how honest that is.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
The following presents a few facts on unauthorized immigrants and immigration in the US. Many of these facts have been noted on divers threads here, but two Wikipedia articles conveniently collect and cite references for them.

Research shows that illegal immigrants increase the size of the U.S. economy, contribute to economic growth, enhance the welfare of natives, contribute more in tax revenue than they collect, reduce American firms' incentives to offshore jobs and import foreign-produced goods, and benefit consumers by reducing the prices of goods and services.[3][4][5][6][7] Economists estimate that legalization of the illegal immigrant population would increase the immigrants' earnings and consumption considerably, and increase U.S. gross domestic product.[8][9][10][11] There is scholarly consensus that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives.[12][13] Sanctuary cities – which adopt policies designed to avoid prosecuting people solely for being in the country illegally – have no statistically meaningful impact on crime, and may reduce the crime rate.[14][15] Research suggests that immigration enforcement has no impact on crime rates.[16][17][14]

[. . . ]

The illegal immigrant population of the United States peaked in 2007, when it was at 12.2 million and 4% of the total U.S. population.[18][3] Since the Great Recession, more illegal undocumented immigrants have left the United States than entered it, and illegal border crossings are at the lowest levels they have been in decades.[19][20][21][22]


From 2005 to 2009, the number of people entering the U.S. illegally declined by nearly 67%, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, from 850,000 yearly average in the early 2000s to 300,000.[41]

Illegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia


The 2008 global financial crisis has had a large impact on the United States. The construction sector and other areas illegal immigrants traditionally seek employment shrunk. The recession also led to a surplus of American labor, driving down the benefit of hiring illegal immigrants.[13] According to the Pew Research Center, in 2007 the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants peaked at 6.9 million and has dropped by more than 1 million to an estimated 5.6 million in 2014.[14]

After the Great Recession, more immigrants actually returned to Mexico rather than migrated to the United States.[3] From 2009 to 2014, 1 million Mexicans and their families left the U.S. for Mexico. U.S. census data for the same period show an estimated 870,000 Mexican nationals left Mexico to return to the U.S.[3]

[. . . ]

Since about 2014, most illegal immigrants living in the U.S. have been long-term residents. In 2014, about two-thirds (66%) had been in the U.S. for ten years or more, while just 14% had been in the U.S. for less than five years.[4][3]

Just as the total population of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has declined since 2007, the proportion of illegal immigrants in the workforce has also declined; in 2012, illegal immigrants made up 5.1% of the U.S.'s civilian labor force. Unauthorized immigrant workers are over-represented in certain. economic sectors, making up 26% of farming, fisheries, and forest workers; 17% of cleaning, maintenance, and groundskeeping workers; 14% of construction workers; and 11% of food preparation workers.[15]

Illegal immigrant population of the United States - Wikipedia


From the above, one can readily deduce that the primary factor motivating illegal immigration can be summarized as "It's the economy, stupid." Further, the above facts demonstrate that there is a highly effective humanitarian way to reduce illegal immigration by way of traffic across the Southern border, namely, by supporting the labor markets and economic policies in Mexico and Central American countries. This is obviously easier said than done, and requires expertise beyond that of a delusional 70-year-old man who has lived all his life off the gift of hundreds of millions of dollars from his father and stealing from others through corporations.

Similarly obvious is the fact that not every labor-intensive job that Americans do not want to perform can be exported to Mexico and Central America. Facilitating temporary visas for such workers is necessary -- which is currently done to a degree now (apparently Trump hires them as dishwashers, servers and/or maids in his businesses). Naturally a certain percentage of such workers will overstay their visas. There is no rational reason to fearmonger about these illegal immigrants.

But the xenophobic and racist bigotry that motivates Trump and his sycophants to squeal for a border wall has largely diverted attention from truly effective humanitarian policies. The despicable squealing about rapists and murderers coming across the Southern border has largely diverted attention from appreciating the value of our neighbors to the South. Anyone who is ignorant of the value generally of persons who have entered by way of the Southern border and stayed here should seek out some of these "illegal aliens" and get to know them. I don't really expect that to be worthwhile or heeded advice for those who have their nose stuck in Trump's butt crack.

Nevertheless, yesterday at least Senator Schumer's attention was not sp diverted that he overlooked the fact that it isn't miles of border wall that should stand as the symbol of the US, but the Statue of Liberty. I couldn't help but finish out his sentence by remembering those last lines of Emma Lazarus' poem that always bring a lump to my throat:

The New Colossus


Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

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

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

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

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

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"​

It is noteworthy that the founding fathers were all illegal aliens.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Of course there is diversity.
But the left does exhibit a broad trend of opposing increased border security.
And when some call for eliminating ICE, sanctuary cities, & automatic citizenship
for those who arrived illegally, we don't see objections from others on the left.
It gives an appearance of tacit approval.
So, when confronted with your sweeping generalization, your response is that more people on "the left" are expected to decry other people's opinions more often so you can hear them? Moreover you have grouped things that are not necessarily grouped together. A person may support "sanctuary cities," and not the destruction of ICE. In fact, a person may support one "sanctuary city" and not another as cooperation with immigration is a spectrum of behaviors. The trend that I see does not exhibit an opposition of border security, (that is just a regurgitation of propaganda). I see a trend of people challenging aspects of immigration law and opposing specifically Trump's border wall.
As I've said before, if our goal is to remove incentives for illegal entry,
we shouldn't be opposing solely their being illicitly hired by business.
We must also stop giving out public benefits & sanctuary. And we also
need an agency charged with finding & deporting them.
You seem to think it is all or nothing. You are wrong.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
So, when confronted with your sweeping generalization, your response is that more people on "the left" are expected to decry other people's opinions more often so you can hear them? Moreover you have grouped things that are not necessarily grouped together. A person may support "sanctuary cities," and not the destruction of ICE. In fact, a person may support one "sanctuary city" and not another as cooperation with immigration is a spectrum of behaviors. The trend that I see does not exhibit an opposition of border security, (that is just a regurgitation of propaganda). I see a trend of people challenging aspects of immigration law and opposing specifically Trump's border wall.
Geeze, such anger.
You work awfully hard to deny various trends on the left,
& you ignored my implied & specific claims of generality.
Moreover, I notice that you objected to my claim that they opposed
"increased border security" by leaving out the word "increased".
This is an artful but inaccurate rewording. It smells of straw.
You seem to think it is all or nothing.
That's an incorrect inference.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Geeze, such anger.
You work awfully hard to deny various trends on the left,
& you ignored my implied & specific claims of generality.
Lol, I am not sure how you read anger in that, but you should try rereading it with a different tone in mind. It might change your perspective. I ignored your attempt at rationalizing your earlier generalization, yes.
Moreover, I notice that you objected to my claim that they opposed
"increased border security" by leaving out the word "increased".

This is an artful but inaccurate rewording. It smells of straw.
I am not so certain that is significant here. Perhaps, you can elaborate on why you think it an important distinction?
That's an incorrect inference.
Then please explain your perspective better, so I can see that.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
You seem to think it is all or nothing. .

Seriously?

And from the feller who sees no
distinction between-

"increased border security"
and just plain "border security"

Like, all degrees of security are the same;
"security" being, after all, an all or nothing thing. :D
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
Seriously?

And from the feller who sees no
distinction between-

"increased border security"
and just plain "border security"

Like, all degrees of security are the same;
"security" being, after all, an all or nothing thing. :D
Yes, seriously. :cool:
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Ok! So "security" is an absolute. No way to increase
it nor decrease it. No distinctions as to kind, type, sort,
amount, degree or variety.

You seem to think it is all or nothing. (how do we cross out
the "seem to")
No, why would you think that. Rev said that the trend he saw was an "opposition to increased border security" i paraphrased and said I did not see a "trend in opposition to border security." This is not a hard conversation to follow.

Now, Rev made an objection, (I assume because he thought I was jockeying for position). I was not. What I said, was intended to reflect his sentiment, and not misconstrue his sentiment and create a strawman.

If you think that my paraphrasing did deliberately misconstrue his sentiment, by all means explain how.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Ok! So "security" is an absolute. No way to increase
it nor decrease it. No distinctions as to kind, type, sort,
amount, degree or variety.

You seem to think it is all or nothing. (how do we cross out
the "seem to")
It's a bickering technique....seize some small difference (feigned
or real), then make it the sole topic until claiming to have won.
Been there & experienced that. Tis best to not play the game.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No, why would you think that. Rev said that the trend he saw was an "opposition to increased border security" i paraphrased and said I did not see a "trend in opposition to border security." This is not a hard conversation to follow.

Now, Rev made an objection, (I assume because he thought I was jockeying for position). I was not. What I said, was intended to reflect his sentiment, and not misconstrue his sentiment and create a strawman.

If you think that my paraphrasing did deliberately misconstrue his sentiment, by all means explain how.

Your request seems most disingenuous.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It's a bickering technique....seize some small difference (feigned
or real), then make it the sole topic until claiming to have won.
Been there & experienced that. Tis best to not play the game.

Oh sometimes there is vague value in seeing how
far a person is willing to go.

At the moment, nothing better to do-

I am sitting here waiting between emails
and phone calls about transferring funds.
(dont do biz with Wells Fargo!!!!)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Oh sometimes there is vague value in seeing how
far a person is willing to go.

At the moment, nothing better to do-

I am sitting here waiting between emails
and phone calls about transferring funds.
(dont do biz with Wells Fargo!!!!)
You're newer here, & still full of vim & vigor.
I'm old, & will depend upon you fresh warriors to carry the torch.

What....too many cliches in such a short post?
 
Top