What arguments are there against unrestricted immigration...

[redeye]

...apart from health and national security problems, both of which acn be taken care of using two things called health screenings and passport controls respectively?

[dfong63]

1. are you kidding?

if a large number of people were added, where would they find work? where would they find housing? where would the additional water, gas, electricity, sewage capacity, come from? who would pay for the additional road/freeway capacity needed? who would pay for the extra prison capacity that would be needed for a larger population? who would pay for their medical care, their children's schooling? and when their children grew up, where would they work and live etc?

do you want every city in the US to look like calcutta, manila, or mexico city?

unrestricted immigration is that it's not in the best interests of the current residents.

in brief, the argument against unrestricted immigration is about the same as the argument against leaving the windows of your house open (and unscreened) all the time.

[redeye]

10. But why...

...should the government care only about current residents?

Besides, the increased number of people will attract more businesses - demand creating supply. And as for the water and gas situation, globally nothing will change, and that's what I care about.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Because current residents ARE citizens

Nonresidents are not and have no implied or theoretical right to be so.

[redeye]

17. Ok, question two:

Why should the government discriminate between citizens and noncitizens?

[MiltonLeBerle]

19. Because the citizens foot the bills.

And the government is the citizens- the whole of, by, and for the people shtick.
Citizens pay the taxes to create and maintain the infrastructure and social services needed for their society. a sudden & massive influx of people would overburden all of it, and ruin it for everyone.

[redeye]

21. No...

...the US government is everyone in the world, by virtue of its world power position. Besides, with unrestricted immigration, immigrants will pay taxes too, so your point is moot.

[MiltonLeBerle]

25. and since they're paying taxes, the new infrastructure will spring up

overnite? is that what you're thinking? Do you understand what's needed to support a huge number of people? what about water and sewer services? you need purification plants at both ends of the spectrum.
Transportation- you'll need more roads accomodate the added traffic.
Added electric capacity, and so on and so on and so on.
so no- the point isn't moot.

[redeye]

35. Not overnight...

...but let's look at the following facts:

1) It's physically hard to immigrate to the USA from any country other than Mexico or Canada, if you're poor;

2) Most people who don't immigrate now but will if immigration restrictiosn are repealed will be poor, because people with enough money either don't need to immigrate or can do so legally;

3) Therefore, most new immigrants who'll come will be from Mexico;

4) Therefore, the USA will be able to use resources from Mexico - e.g. join Texas' and the West's power grids with those of northern Mexico;

5) Therefore, resources that can easily be transferred, such as electricity and water, won't be a problem.

QED about the resources.

As for the additional infrastructure needed, I don't see Los Angeles and San Diego becoming the Mumbais of North America, and those cities are flooded with immigrants even now. Besides, it'll take some time before everyone comes in (jobs won't spring up overnight), and moreover it'll take some time before immigrants have enough money to consume enough to warrant building new roads and better sewage.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. Because it is OUR government

Not the government that represents the other people.

Otherwise, there would be nothing to prevent EVERYONE from moving here and destroying the quality of life for those who are already here.

[redeye]

49. This thinking is flawed

It creates wars. 100 years ago, every European power tried to advance its own people at the expense of the others and, voilà, the situation ignited into WW1. The idea that governments should not help people outside their jurisdiction - especially when those governments are world powers whose jurisdiction is virtually global - only serves to promote strife and wars between nations, each of which cares only for its people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Strife and self determination

Strife in inevitable when people want different things. Government is supposed to be an expression of the will and desires of the people.

Let's take two fictional nations -- A and B.

Nation A is environmentally friendly and wants to protect nature and cut down on pollution. Nation B is just the opposite. That creates a natural conflict. Even with no borders, the two sides would gravitate toward one another.

Even in nations, issues break down into regional, citywide or local and at each level, people break into their component parts.

[redeye]

51. But...

...immigartion restrictions promote strife even between nations that mostly adhere to the same principles. WW1 was a war of power, not of principle; otherwise, authoritarian Russia would've joined Germany and not Britain and France.

Moreover, by the same token California should have the right to bar people from states like Arizona and Idaho from immigrating to it. If it can be done on the national level, then why not on the state, county, and municipal levels?

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Hence the concept of national government

The Soviet Union did that and it's one of the big reasons why they disintegrated into tiny republics. We agree as part of our social contract to obey the same federal laws. As a nation grows larger, that becomes increasingly difficult. Now trying to make the same laws for the world.

[Clete]

2. Not unrestricted, but I think non-Americans could be given

work permits. If they manage to stay employed for five years then give them a Green Card and a chance to become American Citizens. I would insist that prospective employers do their hiring in Mexico or whatever country that they are recruiting in and then apply for the permits from the American Consulate, although an agent could act in the employers behalf.

They should also be required to pay for the worker's transportation to the job and back to their country when the job is through. Also, they need to follow the law as far as meeting minimum wage and employee safety is concerned and of course pay American taxes.

[radwriter0555]

3. Well... white people don't like people with tans.....

that pretty much sums up the entire premise, in reality.

[Clete]

4. Until they find they need a nanny or someone to trim their

hedges. Giving people who are willing to do these jobs work permits seems the sensible thing to do unless they can find other white people who are willing to do it. Big fat chance that will happen, unless the economy gets so bad that those are the only jobs left for those who have been laid off or have seen their job go to another country.

[denverbill]

5. Radwriter0555, that's really not true, not at all.

I personally think we need to drastically limit illegal immigration and H1B visas.

Look what's happened to America. We have no blue collar jobs anymore, and our white collar jobs are now going overseas too. Every day on my drive to work, I see Mexicans working in the fields, the traditional immigrant laborers. But then I see them working road construction and landscaping. Then I see them working in fast food restaurants, doing roofing, and janitorial jobs.

When the job market is tight and there's a need for labor, then it's not a big issue. But when American citizens are losing their jobs and unemployment benefits, it's time to clamp down until things get better.

I've got a lot of respect for Mexican laborers, both legal and illegal. They work their friggin asses off, and save enough money to REALLY help their families back in Mexico. I want them to be able to gain the same dream that Americans have, a comfortable life, a nice home, freedom from want, etc. However, I think we owe it to our fellow citizens to take care of them before we start taking care of others.

We've already lots millions of jobs to maquiladora's in Mexico and sweatshops in China. We're losing thousands more to outsourcing in India.

[Clete]

6. One thing that bothers me about your argument is

that Mexicans are working in construction and landscaping and other jobs that are you hinting should be jobs white Americans do? Many of those Mexicans in those jobs happen to be Americans born and educated here in the good old USA. My son-in-law, who has a good paying blue collar job, is one of them.

[pizzathehut]

53. Why does someone always use the R word when some damn good

reasons are out there against immigration.

When you think about it why did England allow so many irish to immigrate? Because they were resisting them and they wanted to clear them out. Same as today, why doesnt Mexico clean up its own economic mess and give people decent wages? because they know they will just go to the US and be our problem.

I say lets stop all immigration for 1 year. Then allow only 100,00 per year along with those persons that are just on temp work permits.

[Brian Sweat]

61. Opposition to unrestricted immigration is not necessary about racism.

Just because someone doesn't want immigrant coming in and taking jobs from citizens, it doesn't mean they are racist.

I think the current situation viv-a-vis immigration is totally whack, but I do not support unrestricted immigration. It would be an absolute nightmare.

[redeye]

11. What's wrong...

...with Mexicans taking Americans' jobs?

[ErasureAcer]

18. I'm so attracted to latino/hispanic women...

sexy!!! :)

[DrWeird]

7. And what's with all this unrestricted birth?

Oh sure, those kids are cute now, but in a few years they'll be saturating our public schools, using up our health care, and taking all of the good jobs.

I say forced sterilization for all. With excepts for those with high tech skills and are willing to go through a strenous, pointless application process.

[redeye]

13. Who's talking about birth rates?

I'm talknig about immigration, not birth rates, which need to be brought down in practically any possible way but forced sterilizaiton and abortion (and the moment Hispanic children get sex education, forced abortions won't be needed).

[Nikia]

8. I suppose it depends on how many will be coming

Communities can only absorb so many people especially if the economy is in shambles. Some communities could not afford to build bigger schools and have big ESL programs and there might be high unemployment if there is a sudden influx of thousands or even millions in one area.

[MaverickX]

9. the best argument is jobs..

And immigrants willing to work for much less than union workers.

[redeye]

12. Well, the job situation improves...

...in the countries where the immigrants come from. Whenever an American loses a job, an immigrant or a non-American worker gains one, so there shouldn't be any problem with that. And the fact that immigrants are willing to work for less can be taken care of using minimum wages and corporate taxes distributed in welfare to those who lsoe their jobs. The immigrant gains because for him $6 an hour is like, say, $10 for a native-born American, whereas the American worker loses much less.

[MiltonLeBerle]

23. Huh?

"...Whenever an American loses a job, an immigrant or a non-American worker gains one, so there shouldn't be any problem with that..."

Try telling that to the other Americans- the ones that still need jobs themselves.

[redeye]

24. Try telling that to the other Indians -

those who're dying of hunger because the West cares only about its own people, those who're trying to get a job but can't because corporations aren't encouraged to invest in India.

[MiltonLeBerle]

27. Since you seem to want to live in a country that resembles Bombay-

Why don't you go over there and tell them yourself??

that way- you're putting your money where your mouth is, you get to live in the kind of squalor usually associated with massive populations and poverty that you seem to crave, and the Indians get the message you want them to hear and the pleasure of your company-

It's a Win, Win, Win situation all the way around.

I'll even get you started-
here's a link:

http://www.airindia.com

ooohhh- it's exciting to be a part of this grand crusade, no matter how small a part i've been able to play- I'm getting goosebumps, and I think I feel a tear swelling in my eye...

[redeye]

33. Would you mind replying to my message...

...instead of bashing me ad hominem?

Thanks in advance.

[waggawagga]

59. The Economy in India is Doing Well

Or haven't you heard? There is no separating the question of wages and skills. Most people in places like India are poor because they don't have skills. That's changing (and in India faster than many places) but there's no shortcut to economic development. For a society to develop it has to go through this multigenenerational process whereby workers develop skills incrementally, a legal system is built up, a modern economy is established, and so on. In India if you can join the educated middle class your life now is quite good (in no small part because multinationals are investing in the country).

Immigration to the developed world turns this problem on its head. Instead of a society's trying to raise the skill level of its population (which is a slow and incremental process) unskilled workers move to a society where a modern economy is already in place and people have already worked out the problem of transmitting skills to the next generation. If you've never spent time in a developing society it wouldn't surprise me if you don't appreciate the skills which even a high school graduate has in the developed world (very basic things like an ability to follow instructions, stand in a line, show up for work at 9 and go home at 5, etc.). These kinds of behaviors are learned.

This kind of immigration does work provided two conditions are met: 1) the developed economy has some number of unskilled jobs which need to be done (which ours does but the number isn't infinite); 2) it also has the resources to bring unskilled workers up to the general skill level and, more significantly, educate the children of such immigrants to the point where they're essentially natives (they get all of the skills which come from growing up in a developed society).

Both argue that there's a limit to which developed societies can absorb or assimilate such immigrants. And if you look at what's going on in parts of Europe that's no longer theory (they're importing poverty where they didn't have it before).

[MaverickX]

34. Redeye I sympathize with what you're saying but..

It's based on theory not reality. Here in St. Louis union workers were losing many construction jobs to Mexican immigrants willing to work for alot less on construction sites. Even with minimum wage employers are more likely to hire an immigrant willing to work for $10 an hour as opposed to union workers making $20 an hour. In many cases the immigrant knowlingly works for noncompetetive wages because they know they'll easily take the job from a union worker. We can't force every business to pay $20 an hour but immigration services should monitor immigrant workers to assure they're working for competetive wages. If they refuse they should be deported. The biggest mistake liberals make is when they support unregulated immigration(its an unfortunate leftover from our classical liberal days).

[redeye]

36. Okay...

...let's look at what happens now that the employer pays (20-10)*52*40 = 20800 fewer dollars per year per worker. Prices might fall, in which case the purchasing power of those ten dollars becomes closer to 20 - not exactly 20 because construction wages aren't the only thing the company pays for, but definitely higher than 10. Or, rather, the firm will make higher profits, which can then be taxed and returned to the newly-unemployed people in the form of welfare.

A simpler solution will of course be to encourage unionization of immigrant workers, but it will only be possible after immigration is deregulated, because otherwise new waves of immigration will marginalize those unions.

[MaverickX]

38. redeye...

That sounds like voodoo economics. Also what makes you think many immigrants would want to unionize? What about the ones who see more benefits in being noncompetitive?

[zoidberg]

43. How can you say they are noncompetitive?

If people are willing to work for $10 (and move thousands of miles away to get that job!), then you can't say the wage is noncompetitive. It's not union rates or what Americans would expect, but you need to use a different term.

[redeye]

44. Well...

...I don't see how this is so much of a problem given that already the vast majority of Americans are non-unionized. And as for immigrants seeing benefits in being noncompetitive, the more the USA will share labor and capital with other nations (I'm thinking mainly of Mexico but this will also work with all other nations, maybe except India because its population is 3.5-4 times the USA's), the more the price levels will be the same, so immigrants won't really be abel to work for 10 bucks an hour and support families on the other side of the Rio Grande.

[MiltonLeBerle]

28. Don't forget overburdened infrastructure-

of all kinds.

[Iluvleiberman]

15. Environmental destruction

More houses and more use of resources. More development of the land that can never be repaired.

[redeye]

16. But...

...land is already being destroyed in third-world nations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't immigrants and immigrants' children have fewer children than they would have in their home country?

And besides, the use of resources is global, not national, so moving people among nations ain't gonna help or harm the environment in that respect.

[Iluvleiberman]

20. Not land destruction

Let them trash their own countries.

[redeye]

22. Why?

Why is the USA more important than Mexico and India? Why does it deserev any more protection?

[Iluvleiberman]

26. It doesn't but

the corrupt govts in those countries don't enforce their environmental laws if they have any. Most people are poor and don't care.

We have some of the best in the world but they do not address overpopulation.

[redeye]

32. So...

...that's an argument for unrestricted immigration, if we accept the premise that many more people will immigrate to the US; this way, Jose from Ciudad Juarez will move to El Paso, where he'll have to abide by stricter environmental regulations, so he'll pollute less.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Every nation

Has a right and an obligation to look out for its own citizens and own nation first and foremost.

[Lexingtonian]

29. The basic argument

The fundamental argument of the society that immigrants wish to join is this: we and our ancestors built and have maintained this functional social endeavor Those People want to benefit from; since it's ours, we get to decide who joins and who benefits.

Immigration policy is purely situational. The society looks at conditions internal and external and decides who, if anyone, to let in, why, and how. Discrimination is accepted right of any host society.

Immigration is a privilege. You can claim that the privilege is being denied on immoral grounds or failure to understand the situation involved, but as rights go there are only claims of failure of insight or due process when adjudicating the privilege.

If a person can demonstrate that they are involuntarily or wrongfully exiled then there is a 'right' in the sense that doing anything other than offering restoration of citizenship screws up the definition of citizenship and the claim of the state to justly govern its society.

[Aaron]

30. Cultural preservation/political concerns?

I'm not sure where people would immigrate from, but if most of them were from a nation that is more socially conservative - and there were a significant number of them - it might impact women's reproductive rights, gay rights, the seperation of church and state etc. As a culture, if America has a defined culture - or some collective cultural similarity in general, certainly a part of it is liberal - the right to privacy protecting contraception, abortion, gay rights, pornography, and whatever else it encompasses - is recognized as best I understand it sort of across our culture. Sure many people would disagree, but we've got those rights - at least for right now. Similarly I'd not like to import a powerful number of laissez-faire economists who would do away with minimum wage, medicare, social security, and I'd not like to import a number of video-game and bare-breast banners from Greece, and I'd not like to import a number of whit South African's that cling to notions of apartheid.
Maybe that's selfish/racist or something? I've never really thought about it before now. It's a good question/ty for posting it :) I expect I'll change my mind on this issue or at least end up considering other positions if anyone disagrees with me. I'm by no means settled on this in my mind - as I said I've hardly htought about it.

[redeye]

31. Not necessarily racist...

...but definitely conservative - cultural preservation is antithetical to the open society. A liberal democracy must accept the fact that it is there not to continue its existence but to give the people maximum choice - and that includes the choice to be conservative. Besides, you can by the same topic argue for expelling Texas from the Union or for sterilizing Southerners or so on - at least those things don't force Hispanics, Indians, etc., to remain in the third world.

[theboss]

37. You are looking at it from a world view

I look at it from an American viewpoint. I guess I'm crazy for believing in nationhood and such.

Immigration is important. It's important culturally and economically. But unrestricted immigration is like unrestricted anything; too much will kill you.

You have to ask basic questions:

1. Where will immigrants live?
2. Where will immigrants work?
3. How will they be assimilated?

We can barely answer those three questions now. A failure to answer them on a massive scale leads to a Calcutta or Mexico City - modern cities with areas of unbearable squalor.

And I imagine the assimilation question will get some people angry here, but I do believe there is something to being an "American," more than just an address.

[redeye]

40. It will get very few people angry...

...but I'm one of them. I still haven't gotten a rational explanation why nations are anything but artificial borders, addresses, and the nationality field on one's passport. And yes, you're crazy for believing in nationhood; are Americans really different from Canadians and Mexicans and Chinamen and Indians? I mean, are they so fundamentally different that they can't live within the same cities?

Anyway, to answer your three questions:

1. Probably in those cities that don't have much of a housing problem - Houston, for example. AFAIK, conservative cities like Dallas and Houston have pretty low rents and and a high proportion of unoccupied apartments, whereas liberal cities like Boston and San Francisco have housing problems (note: I'm not implying any causal link, only an observation based on partial facts).

2. In jobs that will gravitate back to the USA from Mexico as corporations have fewer people in Mexico to employ.

3. Why need they be assimilated?

[slackmaster]

39. Please define your terms

Not sure what you mean by "unrestricted immigration". Are you referring to the ability of people to live in the US as non-citizens? The naturalization process? Simply opening up the border and letting anyone walk in with no paperwork?

[redeye]

41. I mean...

...that people will be able to work and live in the USA without visas. I also think that naturalization should become easier, but that's a separate debate. I don't think that the border should be completely open, but I do think that apart from health screenings in cases of epidemics such as SARS and maybe passport checks and some quick paperwork, nothing else should be required of people who come to the USA.

[slackmaster]

48. Thanks for the clarification

What's wrong with the present system of work visas?

[Donny247]

42. Big Business loves immigration

Immigration, contrary to popular belief, isn't strictly a Left/Right issue. On the pro-immigration side is big business who enjoy cheap labor and downward wage pressure. They are joined by cultural idealists on the Left who believe in a coming multi-cultural utopia, demonstrating an incredibly naive idealism. Against immigration you have an unlikely alliance of environmental groups and conservative cultural protectionists, with the latter typified by Pat Buchanon. Environmentalists believe that the world's ecosystem simply cannot sustain 500 billion Americans, given America's huge per-capita consumption levels. With immigration, any positive environmental initiatives are simply damage control. For example, a 5% reduction in per-capita emissions is futile in the face of a 10% increase in the population over 10 years.

To sum it up, a concensus has emerged between "corporate jet conservatives" and "limousine liberals" that immigration should continue at such unprecedented levels. Lost in this deafening concensus is the environmental community, such as the Sierra Club, and cultural protectionists, who are simplistically labelled as racist. Seeing that big business is the strongest lobby in America and is such a proponent of immigration, both parties refuse to honestly debate this issue, despite having important constituencies in each party that are worried about the impact of unrestricted immigration.

[redeye]

45. I don't care what big business thinks

And while you raise an important point about immigration, there are two things you haven't done:

a) Show how immigrants will consume much more once in the USA; and
b) Give an argument for immigration restrictions rather than an overview of the topic.

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that you haven't refuted my position.

[luckydevi]

54. In theory yes

In theory I do support open borders, but if we are going to continue to have a welfare state, unlimited immigration would become an economic drain.

[waggawagga]

58. Of Course Immigrant Will Consume More Once in the US

True open immigration is a nutty idea. First, the number who would want to immigrate is probably in the hundreds of millions (I don't know if you've visited the rest of the world but people in large parts of it are caught in a poverty trap).

Second, most are poor and have no skills (so forget about the US economy somehow absorbing these people).

Third, even if most didn't find jobs a large number would stay (and would crowd into cities, this is what immigrants do).

The part I can't figure out is why you don't accept as obvious on its face the problem of resources (because these people would need electricity, water, schools, ways to get around, and so on).

Go to Mexico City or Bangkok sometime.

[pizzathehut]

55. Why does someone always use the R word when some damn good

reasons are out there against immigration.

When you think about it why did England allow so many irish to immigrate? Because they were resisting them and they wanted to clear them out. Same as today, why doesnt Mexico clean up its own economic mess and give people decent wages? because they know they will just go to the US and be our problem.

I say lets stop all immigration for 1 year. Then allow only 100,00 per year along with those persons that are just on temp work permits.

[redeye]

56. That's all fine and dandy...

...but you haven't said why there should be immigration restrictions, especially when Mexico just can't take care of its own situation.

[pizzathehut]

60. The environment is one reason.

Look at countries in Europe or in japan where there are no natural areas left. More people=more stress on the environment. Just try finding places to camp on the coasts. And we keep building houses over the best available farmland.

You have to admit this is part of the reason for last years energy crisis in CA and the recent blackout. More people=more power needed.

We are already looking to have 400 million in the US by 2100. A bad legacy to leave our grandkids.

And again dont call me racist. I've asked my Mexican freinds about this and they agree that they left Mex partly because of the overcrowded conditions. They dont want them here.

[Blue_Chill]

57. The job market comes to mind

as in 9 million are unemployed at the moment, so allowing a huge flow of job seekers basically means handing out more unemployment checks forever.