Why Do We Allow ANY Immigration?

[ThomWV]

I'm serious about this, why do we, as a nation, allow any permanent immigration into this country? We have a positive population growth rate, its not like we have a need for more people and I would argue that we also have no obligation to accept anyone from anywhere.

I understand that immigration and theft are the pillars on which the country came into existence, but that is not the question I ask here. My question is why at this point in time, right now, with the conditions of the world what they are and we in our place in it with such resources, restraints, and commitments as apply - why - do we continue to allow anyone to come and stay? This is not to have an effect on TEMPORARY refuge to political refugees or others on humanitarian grounds while the base cause is addressed.

[Bridget Burke]

1. You regard immigration as equal to theft?

Tell me, what's the name of your tribe,

[ThomWV]

3. Thats Not What I Said

I said that it was theft for one thing and immigration for a second thing that was how this country came into existance. By that I mean that we stole the god damned country from the natives and eveyrone who came and did that was an immigrant. I know that - its not the issue at this moment.

[HamdenRice]

2. Social security would go bankrupt without it ...

You state that "we have a positive population growth rate," but among native born Americans it is a low rate. Our economy is based on growth patterns that require higher birth rates, and more younger, lower paid workers than our native born and even second generation immigrant families produce. If it were not for young immigrant workers, the social security would be in much more trouble than it is.

Also with a social welfare system -- at least what is left of it -- it makes little economic sense for many low paid workers to do the work that immigrants will do for the wages they will accept.

So the goal of the globalists is to increase immigration and eventually break down the resistance of American workers to doing menial work for menial wages and to completely dismantle the social safety net.

BTW, it is also well documented that immigrants create more jobs than they take away, because they have to be fed, clothed, sold shelter and services, etc. But they do depress wages.

[Xithras]

6. True, Social Security is really a giant Ponzi Scheme.

It's based on the assumption that there will always be far more people paying into the system than taking away from it. Since the young payers eventually become older takers, it requires that our population exponentially expand in order to maintain its viability. Since modern American's don't have enough babies to sustain this expansion, we require immigration to make up the difference.

Of course, I saw a number once that followed these numbers out to their logical conclusion...they demonstrated that for SS to be viable in the year 2100, the US will require a population of about one and a quarter billion people.

[Bridget Burke]

8. So you agree with Bush's plans for Social Security?

Where did you see that "number"?

[HamdenRice]

11. You don't have to agree with bush's plan ...

There is a demographic problem. There was a financial solution. That was for social security to "save" money, literally a multi-billion pot of cash, while the baby boom workers are still working and paying into the system. Since they had to invest in something, and they were worried about the bias effect that would occur if they invested in stock, they invested in treasury bills. That deal was worked out long ago in the 90s.

Bush kept saying it was a crisis, but the system needed only minor tweeking. Bush has fuc*ed up the system anyway even though he didn't get his way, by bankrupting the federal government. The key to the fix was that the federal government be solvent enough to pay off the treasury bills owned by social security trust fund. That is increasingly in doubt.

That's OK, because my guess is when this catastrophe is over we're going to have to start cutting the one big fat sacred cow where there are billions of potential savings -- the military budget.

[LostinVA]

92. But the 2100 date has been proven to be incorrect

[Xithras]

24. ROFL, hell no.

But anybody denying that SS is a Ponzi Scheme has obviously never spent more than five minutes thinking about it. For SS to work properly, you really need to have a bare minimum of three people paying in for each person taking out. Get any lower than that, and the indivudual tax burden gets so high that most of us would end up paying 70+% of our income in taxes. Now, this isn't quite as bad as it sounds, because not everyone takes SS. Since the majority of those three "payers" will one day be takers themselves, however, we do need to add three ADDITIONAL payers for each of our original payers between the time they start work and they retire. That's three new workers for every one, in the span of a lifetime.

SS has survived for a very long time because for its first decades it was seen simply as a resource for those without families and was ignored by many elderly. After that, it was buoyed by the US economic boom period (incomes grew faster than population, negating the growth need) and the introduction of women into the general workforce (practically doubling the number of payees). There aren't any more windfall worker expansions on the horizon, and population & technology growth have devalued labor so much that economic expansion like that seen in the mid-century US will probably never be seen again. That simply leaves population growth to feed future SS income needs.

And I got the number in college, in a math class. The instructor was giving us real world examples of exponential growth and SS-derived population growth was one of those examples. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with SS, but it WILL require wide scale population growth to keep it sustainable into the distant future. Since Americans don't like to have lots of babies anymore, than means the growth will have to come from immigration.

[radio4progressives]

75. Sounds like one of Grover's protegies perhaps?

[LostinVA]

13. It's not a Ponzi scheme

Where oh where have I heard that before?

[Xithras]

25. Ponzi Scheme = A system that pays current members with fees from new ones.

In order to maintain cash flow, all pyramid-style financial transactions (like ponzi schemes or SS) require ever increasing numbers of payees. SS does have the advantage that old people eventually die and leave the system, but the total number of SS takers never drops. Since you always need more payers than takers, SS requires constant population growth.

Calling something a ponzi scheme isn't an insult, it's simply a description of a system that pays current members using proceeds from new members. There's no need to get defensive about it.

[LostinVA]

36. Calling something a Ponzi Scheme IS an insult

Because it's considered a fraudulent investing scam. The RW is trying too hard to dismantle SS, using some of these very terms, so of course I'm defensive about it... it'll devastate so many people if SS is dismantled.

And, I know how SS works.

[Bridget Burke]

28. I know! I know!

But it would be rude to say.

[LostinVA]

53. Hehehehehe

[Odin2005]

46. Actually it IS a Ponzi Scheme...

...But few Ponzi schemes can be called the best social program ever invented. :evilgrin:

[LSK]

81. illegal immigrants do not pay in nor recieve social security

Not sure why this was even brought up ....

:shrug:

[GRLMGC]

89. They pay into social security

through fraudulent numbers they just don't receive any of it

[hippiechick]

4. mmmm ...

:popcorn:

[Strelnikov_]

5. Considering We Are Well Into A Malthusian Overshoot

there is no justification for any immigration except for humanitarian reasons.

http://www.energybulletin.net/4735.html

Thomas Robert Malthus, 1766-1834, famously observed that human population, if unchecked, would grow faster than its food supply. He argued that education in "moral restraint" might prevent starvation from being the operative check on population growth. It is implicit in his writings that uncontrolled population growth, failing "moral restraint", would stall near the natural limits of the food supply. The population would remain stable thereafter, with many people living on the edge of starvation. But general undernourishment of a stable population is not a likely result of the current fantastic expansion of the human population. Like many who have commented on population growth, Malthus did not understand overshoot.

A species may greatly overshoot the long term carrying capacity of its environment. (Its population may become greatly larger than its environment can sustain.) Overshoot becomes possible when a species encounters a rich and previously unexploited stock of resources that promotes its reproduction.

. . .

Malthus thought that population would approach a sustainable limit, then hover there, with many people living in poverty and misery. He did not imagine overshoot and sudden collapse. He did not understand that technology was converting mineral concentrations and much of the biosphere into windfall stocks that would stimulate rapid population growth. Now, two hundred years after Malthus, humans have multiplied their numbers far beyond any sustainable limit, and the end of the windfall stocks is in sight.

[Bridget Burke]

7. So you want the US to become a gated community...

While the rest of the world goes to hell? Good luck.

[Strelnikov_]

12. I Am Saying That Americans Had Better Get Their Head And Ass Wired

together boy-howdy quick, or reality is going to take a giant **** on them.

Or do you think the world can provide for 250M more 'American' lifestyles by 2050?

Sorry, there are massive resource depletion problems looming that in good faith prevents me from making a politically correct response to immigration. Riot and starvation are not a fun way to spend the golden years.

We, along with the rest of the world, need to achieve 0 population growth, today.

[Bridget Burke]

27. Do you really think that we will escape...

If riot & starvation overtake the whole world? Zero population growth for the world is a great goal, but no man is an island.

Keep that SUV gassed up--after all, it's the "American" way.

[Strelnikov_]

41. We Can't Lead If Our Own House Is Not In Order

And I am not talking about maintaining our current way of life. We need to reduce our consumption to generate excess to help with worldwide mitigation, for those countries that agree to implement their own Powerdown.

SUV? I walk or bike to work, from my small house, having implemented the beginning of my own Powerdown.

[radio4progressives]

79. Better make your case to Pat Robertson et al

what was that was said last week? "we lost 40 million workers through abortions in the past 40 years" (paraprhasing)

seems like i'd focus on the right wing taliban's intention to force women in this country to bread unwanted children - unwanted children grow up to be unwanted adults - and everyone knows what we do with unwanted adults.

[Xithras]

10. Probably not in the U.S.

There are some areas in the US that are badly overpopulated in comparison to their carrying capacity (Southern California and the Hawaiian Islands come to mind), but for the most part the US does still have enough agricultural capacity to sustain its population. Even with Peak Oil raising the possibility that modern fertilizers may be on their way out, there are sufficient substitutes to prevent an overall crash in avaiable foodstocks here.

The real problem lies in the third world, where booming populations are largely sustained by imported food, and in Asia, where populations in many regions are completely dependent on someone else shipping them food. A reduction, or even a flattening of production growth, in the availability of food supplies to these areas would be disasterous.

The real threat to the US in this scenario is a resource war, where other countries try to take our production to avoid starvation.

[Strelnikov_]

45. I Agree We Can Probably Grow Enough Food For Our Current Population

with reduced fossil energy inputs assuming adequate leadership. I have made frequent posts regarding my position that the food production issue of Peak Oil is somewhat overstated.

But this is a thread related to population growth. Do you think we can grow an adequate quantity of food, with ever decreasing petroleum inputs, and ever more land dedicated to biomass energy sources, for the projected US population of 500M by 2050?

Sorry, but I don't think we can. Powerdown has to include an end to exponential growth.

[adwon]

26. Malthus?

Malthus' predictions have continually been proven wrong. While diebacks can (and do) occur for other species, the same is not true for humans. Famines are not natural phenomena, but political phenomena.

There may be a legitimate question about sustaining a particular standard of living, but there is no question about the ability to sustain life.

[Strelnikov_]

38. Really?

Know any Mayan's?

How about Anasazi?

But those Greenland Norse have a thriving civilization, along with those Easter Islanders.

Whatever you want to call it, I believe that the human race may have overshot carrying capacity considering the looming decline in fossil energy production.

[adwon]

43. I'm sorry

Did those cultures disappear within the last several centuries? And is there proof that it had anything to do with starvation? Additionally, it's disingenuous to assert that any extinct culture is also extinct physically. Did the various invaders of China go extinct because they became immersed in Chinese culture?

You are free to believe what you like. I don't attack your beliefs. I attack the spectacular failure that is Malthusian doomsdaying.

[Strelnikov_]

48. You Stated That Diebacks Do Not Occur For Humans

I simply noted some past civilizations, of humans, that did die back, the common factors being:

1) Resource depletion.
2) Climate change.
3) Entrenched leadership that did not react due to their power center being the status quo.

It's happened before, it will happen again.

And you are free to believe what you like. Whatever it takes to get you through the day.

[adwon]

49. Actually

You didn't note that those cultures died out, you simply noted they weren't existent. Additionally, I said that famines ARE a political famine, not that they always have been (this was unclear, my fault). The famines of the 20th century, and I believe the 19th as well, had a common link: failure of political leadership.

Your examples are a bit weak if only because they are 1000 years old and bear little or no resemblance to modern conditions. As I recall, Paul Ehrlich declared in 1970 that India would suffer massive starvation and millions of deaths because of Malthusian logic. India was self-sufficient in food production by the mid-1970s. The reason for the failed prediction? Ehrlich was making predictions for animals that don't use tools.

A natural famine could happen again; it's not impossible. Without a catastrophic change, this is ridiculously unlikely. Until then, bad government will continue to be the sole source of starvation.

I'm not stating beliefs. I'm stating facts. I believe only two things: I'm not God and I've yet to hear it all.

[Strelnikov_]

51. Again, You Stated That Diebacks Do Not Occur For Humans

I provided examples that they do.

And I believe that that are applicable examples as human dynamics have not changed over time.

[adwon]

72. Final response

You provided examples of disappeared cultures. You did not provide evidence of why they disappeared. Dying out is one possible explanation but it requires proof to be accepted. Additionally, the fact that cultures disappear does not mean that the people disappeared. Perhaps the area became untenable and they migrated to other areas and were assimilated into other cultures.

The fact that natural famines occurred 1000 years ago doesn't mean they occur today. If you have an example within the last several hundred years of a famine that was not caused or substantially aggravated by political factors, please share it. By the way, when I say substantially aggravated, one example could be Britain's refusal to amend the Corn Laws when the blight destroyed potato crops in Ireland. The blight may have killed some, but without Britain's negligence, would have been over one million?

[Strelnikov_]

73. And Again, You State "While Diebacks Can (And Do) Occur . .

for other species, the same is not true for humans. Famines are not natural phenomena, but political phenomena."

I respond with examples of past human civilizations that have suffered diebacks due to famine, from natural phenomena. Of course politics was involved, as politics are a part of all human endeavor. To say politics was not a factor is to say humans were not a factor which would be as pointless as this sub-thread.

What more can I say except 'it has happened before, it will happen again'.

[wuushew]

66. loindelrio, you and I have been reading the same book

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0670033375.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


An excellent read if somewhat repetitive in certain chapters. The premise of the original post should have dealt solely with population growth and its curtailment to avoid any element of racial bitterness. Immigration is currently making ZPG problematic and compounding the necessary steps to build a sustainable society.

Despite the so called abundance of land in the United States the eminent crisis of energy will mean that much of the land will be abandoned. Certainly the overpopulated Southwest could draw important lessons from the description of modern Australia and its problems.

[helderheid]

9. My husband is an immigrant and I'd be heartbroken if he wasn't here with

me. I am baffled by your post.

[LostinVA]

14. Yup...

[gollygee]

16. That's where I am too

Or maybe he and I should move out? What if his country did the same thing?

[Swamp Rat]

59. I AM heartbroken

For nearly three years we are separated because immigration laws. :(

[fujiyama]

65. I'll take it a step further

I'm disgusted by those sorts of views. Fuck this xenophobic bullshit.

Few advocate "open borders", but if you support the likes of Tancredo, DU isn't the place for you.

[Blue Poppy]

83. Me too!

I have a husband from another country.

I guess he should just "go back where he came from", like he was told by one of his co-workers. :mad:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Why do we allow people to have children? A drain on the economy?

Why do we allow old people to live so long? Why do we allow them Social Security?

Why not just deny humanity entirely, and save 'Murka for healthy, ambitious, preferably blonde & blue eyed Supermen?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

17. This is why:

"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!"

There was a time that actually meant something- it happens to be on a bronze plaque on the base of The Statue Of Liberty.

(It's a verse from a poem written by Emma Lazarus- it's called "The New Collossus".)

Shall we have the plaque removed?

[porphyrian]

20. Oops, you beat me to it. - n/t

[ThomWV]

23. Once Again - That Maudlin Crap Is Not What I Asked

I think it is just fine that we welcomed everyone who could find an oar in times past, but that is not the question.

Once again - why do we allow immigration today? What need does this country have of more people. Now if theire is some sort of quota system by which every country must allow immigration of some number of people under some circumstance and blah blah blah that we are a party to then that is a reason. If we have a great need for low cost labor, then that is a need. Maybe we just need lots of guys hanging around 7-11's that we can fear and hate, and then that might be a need. All I'm asking is what is our need?

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

58. That "Maudlin Crap" is what this nation is built on.

If you don't like it then by all means feel free to emigrate elsewhere.

[LSdemocrat]

18. Diversity is good

Outside of security concerns, why shouldn't we allow people to come and go?

[mdmc]

71. Our weakness is our greatest strength regarding security

Immigration, allowing people from the UAE, China, North Korea, the Tali-ban, to come to America and gain the opportunity of freedom, to earn wages through employment, to learn through education, to purchase goods in a free market, this makes the world a better place.

Collective security makes the entire world safer. This policy is the best way to confront terror.

[porphyrian]

19. "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus

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!"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. I guess my problem with the whole immigration issue

is that if these laws had been in place when MY folks came over on the boat, I wouldn't be here. Frankly, I think that any person who is not a criminal should be allowed to come here. In my mind, to think otherwise is really hypocritical.

[supernova]

22. Then YOU, TomWV, go back where you came from

You can clear up our immigration problem right now by returning to the land of your forefathers, toute de suit.

Do it! We'll be glad you did.

[ThomWV]

29. That Is A Silly Thing To Say - And Off Subject Too

It doesn't do anything to answer the question, its just a diversion. The fact that I am here, and you are here, and 300 million of the rest of them too, that is not what I'm asking about. In case the question didn't sink in - in light of today's circumstance why do we allow it at all?

[Bridget Burke]

31. No, it's not a silly thing to say.

We're just interested in improving the USA!

[supernova]

33. No, it's not

OT at all. And good, I got your attention. That was the point.

My question is what does it being today have to do with anything?

If you are unaware, we are a nation of immigrants. It would be hypocritical in the extreme to suddenly disallow immigration into this country.

Beside, moving around from one place to another is the natural inheritance of our species, ever since that first person walked out of Africa, in search of something... different? better? better, more available food, perhaps? Who knows. But the fact is that moving around is part of the human condition. Disallowing it is not only UNAmerican, it is inhumane.

If you are so upset about all the new arrivals, I remind you that our own Lionessprianka is a brand-spanking new citizen as of last weekend.

[radio4progressives]

82. "In light of Today's Circumstances" is the same argument that was

made to the Irish immigrants, to the Italian immigrants, the Jewish refugees, the Greeks, the Polish and on and on and on.

It's the same damn question, and it's the same damn attitude..

I call it Euro-Centric White Supremacy.

Period. End of Story.

on edit to make it clear, that I'm white.. but I know racism and zenophobia when i see it - and we see this over and over again throughout our history.. nothing new here.

[Xithras]

30. I'm actually with you on this.

Not neccesarily on the immigration thing, but certainly the ZPG issue. IMO, scientists need to find a way to make humans temporarily sterile. If you want to breed, you should have to get a permit...and the number of permits available should be limited to the number of people who have died in the last year.

I'm also not averse to the idea that governments should be able to set local "population limits". I don't agree with banning immigration, but I have no problem with holding them to the same limits as new children...i.e. immigrants can't move into an area that's at its population limit until people move out and free up space, or die off and do the same thing. The "people permits" should be open to competition, with both immigrants and couples wanting children having to compete (or randomly be drawn) for available slots.

IMO, ZPG trumps human rights. My right to breathe clean air and drink clean water, not to mention EAT, trumps other peoples rights to #@$* like bunnies and make 90 kids.

[mtnester]

32. It is NOT illegal immingrants who hurt us

it is our OWN citizens who are scofflaws and hire them....with full disclosure and knowingly.

JUST my opinion...

[melm00se]

34. we allow immigration

because a closed system, regardless of how large stagnates and dies.

[sinkingfeeling]

35. Isolationism doesn't work. If the US closes down legal immigration,

then the rest of the world can do the same. In this age of 'globalization', do you really think corporations are going to withdraw from around the world and be satisfied with a measly 285 million customers? Where would our 'raw' materials come from if we don't have them here? (Forget the fact that we have 'outsourced' most of our manufacturing and have very few 'products' to sell to places like China and India)? All of humanity is related (a fact often forgotten by RW nut cases). I all for free borders. I want to go all over the world and already know that there are places in the Middle East that I cannot travel to and tons of others where I will not be welcomed. I have no desire to ignore the plight of the rest of my brothers and sisters while we 'secure' the USA and hang on to what we've got.

[Ohio Joe]

37. It is not that we need more people

It is that we should be a nation that is willing to accept anyone that wants to be free. Thats the America I was raised to believe in, thats the America my grandparents immigrated to , to be a part of.

[novalib]

39. My Thoughts....

Exactly.

Thanks for your post.

[Ohio Joe]

42. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[foreigncorrespondent]

40. Thanks a lot Thom!

Please don't ever run. You get your way and Sapphocrat and I may never be together!

[Radio_Guy]

44. I'm confused

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x735298

Which side are you taking?

[LostinVA]

54. WTF? Yeah, Thom which side ARE you on???

[Radio_Guy]

61. I almost got whiplash

reading both posts. I've heard of talking out of both sides of your mouth, but typing out of both sides of your keyboard???

[LostinVA]

63. Yeah, I know -- and I'd still like an answer!

[Radio_Guy]

67. Don't hold your breath waiting

It might add color to your cheeks, but it won't bring the answer any faster, if at all. :)

[LostinVA]

69. hehehehhe... I know!

Several posters called him out about this... but not a word!

[Karenina]

85. Just a kick

for contrast.

[Ksec]

47. Hmm

I say we allow legal immigration when we need more people. If theres a labor shortage (which I seriously doubt) allow people in to fill the need. So many from each country..It could be construed as callous but you cant kill the citizenry to help others. Its counterproductive to become third world trying to help the third world. I tend to believe we can do much more if were able to do more. And save the third world comments. I dont know a better term right now.

[countryjake]

50. Janus, is that you?

[robertpaulsen]

52. Is this a joke? Or is it multiple personality disorder?

ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar-23-06 07:27 PM
Original message
Why Don't We Allow UNRESTRICTED Immigration Into This Country?

I'm serious about this, why don't we, as a nation, allow permanent and unrestricted immigration into this country? Ad a drive over any 100 miles of interstate in the country will show you there's plenty of room.

Immigration is one of the pillars on which the country came into existence and it might well be argued that diversity is our nation's strength.

So my question is why at this point in time, right now, with the conditions of the world what they are and we in our place in it with such resources, restraints, and commitments as apply - why - don't we allow anyone to come and stay without restriction? This would be way past TEMPORARY refuge to political refugees or others on humanitarian grounds while the base cause is addressed. Why not have citizenship on demand for anyone who resides in the country?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x735298

[LostinVA]

55. Yeah, I think the OP has a bit of explaining to do

[kalibex]

56. Cheap Labor _&_ 'Fresh Blood'.

Each successive wave of immigrants has started out in low tier service jobs, been looked down upon and discriminated against (serving as societal scapegoats and whipping boys during their early tenure here), but, with successive generations of children, experience & education, after 'doing their time' as it were, have worked their way up the 'social ladder'.

Eg: Once there were 'No Irish need apply' signs.....eventually there was an Irish Catholic president.

-B

[lovuian]

57. CHEAP LABOR is a CRIME

Employers who hire immigrants for cheap labor should be arrested...

Immigration is undermining the middle class and taking in uneducated immigrants is a burden on society!!!

controlled immigration is alright but open the spigots is ridiculous!!!

[Swamp Rat]

60. I'd be willing to trade YOU for my SO who cannot immigrate here.

I'd much rather have her here with me than you. I'd be willing to trade your entire family for just her.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Way I See It? Ain't No One In The World That Has The Right To

Own any part of the earth and declare you can't live there. I think anyone should be able to live in any fucking country they want to without resistance. They must abide by the laws and follow the rules of the host government, but if they choose that country as the one in which they desire to live there ain't an entity in the world that should have a fucking right to stop em.

That's my take on it.

[MiniMe]

64. We are a nation of immigrants. Other than Native Americans,

everybody here had relatives that immigrated.

[AngryAmish]

68. How do you think Native Americans got here?

They immigrated too except their ancestors did it long ago.

[mdmc]

70. America is the land of opportunity, a beacon of hope. The hope of a

better life.

My family had ancestors that were here before the revolution (paternal grandmother' side of the family), that arrived in 1910 (paternal grandfather's side of the family), in 1830 (maternal grandfather's side of the family), and 1935 (maternal grandmother's family).

All humans deserve the opportunity that allowed my family to flourish. I prefer an open immigration policy.

[trudyco]

74. Sometimes DU'ers scare me... no immigration? Open spigot???

I would not want to live here if you let "everybody" in. Nor do I think it reasonable to have no immigration - people want to adopt, couples want to marry, etc.

BUT zpg is a good goal. We have enough people in this country. I'm for tax incentives to get our pop growth negative and then open immigration to make up the difference for an overall zpg. Of course we are using immigration and illegal immigration to prop up SS and medicare and housing and business. It just means we push the problem out another generation (at which time it will be even worse)or we have to allow even a bigger population growth.

It's time to take the bull by the horns. Illegal immigration is just one offshoot of the bigger problem: Our economy has been based on an ever growing population and our land isn't getting any bigger.

[radio4progressives]

76. you can't deny that we are a nation of immigrants - it is our heritage

and it is a fact of our modern history, particularly in the past century.

[Iris]

84. Exactly. And you'd think we'd have grown up a bit as a nation, not

resort to the same sort of bashing that we did with the Irish and other groups of immigrants as the entered this country.

[Iris]

77. Why are you letting Republicans jerk your chain?

That's the reason this immigration thing is even an issue right now. Another way to control the masses - This time by convincing them someone is getting something they aren't.

[geniph]

78. Because business demands it

Who would pick the green beans, tend the children, scrub the toilets, mow the lawns?

If business actually wanted the flow of immigrants - legal or illegal - stopped, it would stop. Business interests make sure that there are no restrictions on a constant flow of cheap labor. They depend on it.

[LSK]

80. because just like our Freedoms, America should not change for safety

America was built on Immigrants and just because of FEAR and TERRA we should not turn our back on them now.

Tell us why America should continue to exist if it is not Land of the Free and the Melting Pot of the world.

What is left that really is America???

[Swamp Rat]

86. ThomWV, why do you have two posts taking opposite positions?

Is this an experiment or something?

[LostinVA]

87. He's been asked that for a few days now -- he hasn't answered

[Swamp Rat]

88. I am going to kick his threads until we get a full explanation. n/t

[LostinVA]

91. Good!

[Marie26]

90. Oh, God

When it's hard to tell DU apart from the "O'Reilly Factor" boards, I think we have a problem.