The Immigration Debate

[lilithu]

"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!"

In case there is anyone who doesn't recognize these words, even the most famous line, this poem is engraved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. This is the ideal that we lift up, compassionate welcome to those who seek a better life in the U.S.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I wonder what Native Americans think of these words since the "tired, poor and huddled masses" were given their land to live on. I have long equated this poem with ultimate colonialism, not that I vilify colonialism like some do, but still, it is based on the colonial concept of the strong taking from the weak. In fact, the poem is about doing that which it claims not to be doing, conquering like the brazen giant of Greek fame.

 

[lilithu]

I wonder what Native Americans think of these words since the "tired, poor and huddled masses" were given their land to live on.

I agree that the poem presumes rightful ownership of a land that was taken from others. But in my mind, that makes exclusion of subsequent immigrants even more unjustifiable.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I agree that the poem presumes rightful ownership of a land that was taken from others. But in my mind, that makes exclusion of subsequent immigrants even more unjustifiable.

Why? The original concept was based on limitless land that was stolen from others. Now we have found that there is a limit to the land and have at least taken a token amount of responsiblity for stealing the land in the first place. So why shouldn't the concept be considered out of date and impractical? Especially when it was based on false assumptions to begin with?

 

[lilithu]

Why? The original concept was based on limitless land that was stolen from others. Now we have found that there is a limit to the land and have at least taken a token amount of responsiblity for stealing the land in the first place. So why shouldn't the concept be considered out of date and impractical? Especially when it was based on false assumptions to begin with?

The original concept may have been based on limitless land (incorrectly presumed to have been given to the colonists by God) but the Enlightenment ideal was that this is a land where all are welcome to pursue dreams of liberty. If you want us to take real responsibility for stealing the land, then all of us except those who are descended from Native Americans should leave. But to suggest that we who are here and benefit from what was stolen from others now have the right to tell others that they can't come is intellectually and morally indefensible, imo. That's like stealing food from Jack and then telling Jill that she can't any even tho she's hungrier than you because you've discovered that the supply is "limited."

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

But the Enlightenment Ideal is false. This is not a land where all are welcome to pursue dreams of liberty and never was one. There was a brief time in this nations history when immigration was open to anyone of European origin that could secure travel here. That travel often involved become indentured servants that were little better than slaves. The ideal you speak of is the romanticized view we have of the past, not the reality that those people experienced.

Indentured servant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redemptioner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over half of all white immigrants to the English colonies of North America during the 17th and 18th centuries may have been indentured servants. In the 18th and early 19th century numerous Europeans traveled to the colonies as redemptioners

 

[McBell]

"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!"

In case there is anyone who doesn't recognize these words, even the most famous line, this poem is engraved on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. This is the ideal that we lift up, compassionate welcome to those who seek a better life in the U.S.

Um...
What is it exactly you want to debate?

 

[Sun Myung Moon]

I've shot and nailed some squirells to my barn roof and it seemed to keep them away, it makes me wonder that if we had our own "forest of the impaled", would it make things different?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Um...
What is it exactly you want to debate?

My guess was whether or not the borders should be opened to all immigrants without restriction because that was the Ideal advertised by the poem.

 

[Charity]

I've shot and nailed some squirells to my barn roof and it seemed to keep them away, it makes me wonder that if we had our own "forest of the impaled", would it make things different?

So we should shoot some immigrants and hang them up as a deterrent? Maybe if we check we could find some kind of immigrant repellent spray....

 

[lilithu]

But the Enlightenment Ideal is false. This is not a land where all are welcome to pursue dreams of liberty and never was one. There was a brief time in this nations history when immigration was open to anyone of European origin that could secure travel here.

Interesting that you should mention that. Because the borders have never been completely open to non-Europeans. There have always been restrictions on the number of people who can come to the U.S. who are of Asian or Latin American origin, and of course we know that most people of African origin did not come of their own free will but instead as property. Even now, it is much easier for someone from Western Europe or Australia to immigrate to the U.S. via our immigration system. So when I hear people rant against "illegal immigration" guess what I think?

I've asked you twice now: how can you justify benefiting from the resources of this country and yet denying others from sharing in those resources?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I've asked you twice now: how can you justify benefiting from the resources of this country and yet denying others from sharing in those resources?

I'm not sure that I can, at least not to your satisfaction. I agree that we need to reform current immigration laws but I don't feel guilty for the crimes of past government officials. The US is what it is today due to the rights of the conqueror, like it or not. So is every other country currently in existance. This is a part of our past as human beings and to say it's wrong is fine but to say that we are guilty of crimes commited by others is wrong as well. It is especially wrong to say the US is more guilty when all other countries have the same past. I know that some think we should be held to a higher standard but I am not one of these, especially when it comes to judging our past.

We benefit from the resources of this country because we are here and we are in charge. We limit who may join our citizenship today because we have realised those resources are limited. This is the practical truth of the situation and may not meet the moral ideals of an illusionary past but so what? Why should we try to live up to an ideal that never existed and was flawed at its core in the first place?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I was hoping this thread would generate more interest. Anybody got an opinon on the ideals of immigration vs the realities?

 

[McBell]

"there are no cats in America and the streets are paid with cheese"

 

[Magic Man]

I was hoping this thread would generate more interest. Anybody got an opinon on the ideals of immigration vs the realities?

I have an opinion.

I've asked you twice now: how can you justify benefiting from the resources of this country and yet denying others from sharing in those resources?

I don't want to deny others from sharing in this. However, it needs to be done officially. Maybe the immigration process needs to be reformed, but we can't have people just sneaking in. Also, our government has a hard enough time making this country livable for the 300 million people we already have. I'd like to see some major reforms before I feel like we can support millions of incoming immigrants.

 

[Storm]

I was hoping this thread would generate more interest. Anybody got an opinon on the ideals of immigration vs the realities?

I can see both sides.

 

[JewishLeftist]

The term "illegal immigrants" is a scare term, because it essentially implies that it is a crime to be born in another country. Human beings are not "illegal". All laws regarding so-called "illegal" immigrants will be removed; in the abcense of these laws, there will be no criminalization of human existence based on location of birth, as we will welcome all of those who wish to come.

Currently, there are measures in place set to restrict people from certain nations from enriching their fine cultures with our beautiful set of cultures. If we are really a nation of "E plurbis unum," out of many one, it makes no sense to divide with such xenophobic, racist pandering to extremist militia groups. America, and indeed all "nations" (a very fluid concept anyways!) should allow peoples of all creeds, colors, and religions to intermingle freely on an equal basis.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The term "illegal immigrants" is a scare term, because it essentially implies that it is a crime to be born in another country. Human beings are not "illegal".

I completely disagree. There have always been laws covering immigration, at least for as long as humanity has divided itself into nations, so anyone breaking those laws has been an illegal immigrant. It has nothing to do with being born in another country, it is about breaking the law. While the law might be considered racist that is separate from considering a person a criminal for breaking the law. If you break an existing law you have commited an illegal act. It doesn't matter whether you like the law or whether you consider the law right or wrong.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The term "illegal immigrants" is a scare term, because it essentially implies that it is a crime to be born in another country. Human beings are not "illegal". All laws regarding so-called "illegal" immigrants will be removed; in the abcense of these laws, there will be no criminalization of human existence based on location of birth, as we will welcome all of those who wish to come.

The term "underage drinker" is a scare term, because it essentially implies that it is a crime to be under 21 years old. Human beings under 21 are not "illegal". All laws regarding so-called "underage" drinkers will be removed; in the absence of these laws, there will be no criminalization of human existence based on date of birth, as we will welcome all of those of all ages.

 

[Smoke]

But the Enlightenment Ideal is false. This is not a land where all are welcome to pursue dreams of liberty and never was one. There was a brief time in this nations history when immigration was open to anyone of European origin that could secure travel here. That travel often involved become indentured servants that were little better than slaves. The ideal you speak of is the romanticized view we have of the past, not the reality that those people experienced.

Obviously, it's an ideal, and ideals rarely match reality. I think the question is whether it's a worthy ideal that we would do well to hold on to.