Obama: We Are Not Defined By Our Borders
Seriously, he said it. To the president of Mexico.
It’s not a surprise based on both the president’s unwillingness to enforce our immigration laws and his assault on states attempting to enforce them for him. But it’s certainly unnerving to see.
UPDATE: This isn’t the half of it. Mexican president Calderon, whose country rakes some $50 billion per year in remittances off Mexicans living in America back to the old country and whose government continues policies aimed at the promotion of illegal emigration into the U.S., and whose nation’s laws on immigration are more restrictive than anything proposed anywhere in the United States, said the Arizona law “is forcing our people to face discrimination.”
He swore an oath to pretect and defend this country. Obama needs to be impeached.
He swore an oath to pretect and defend this country. Obama needs to be impeached.
It's like every time this guy talks he says "We don't have any national pride.". Sadly I don't think McCain would have any more backbone. It's just sad.
It's like every time this guy talks he says "We don't have any national pride.". Sadly I don't think McCain would have any more backbone. It's just sad.
America should not be defined by its borders. The ideals of this country have always transcended geography. I think it's disheartening to see Americans thumbing their noses at so many people who want to come to this country, work hard and improve their lives. Forget the fence. Build a bridge.
Apparently America isn't defined by its laws, either, if insisting that the government enforce its immigration laws amid the costs to states for prisons, schools and hospitals in handling 12 million illegals bankrupting them is "thumbing their noses" at the huddled masses.
There is immigration, and there is trespassing. And if American ideals transcended geography we wouldn't have a banana republic directly south of our border.
America should not be defined by its borders. The ideals of this country have always transcended geography. I think it's disheartening to see Americans thumbing their noses at so many people who want to come to this country, work hard and improve their lives. Forget the fence. Build a bridge.
Apparently America isn't defined by its laws, either, if insisting that the government enforce its immigration laws amid the costs to states for prisons, schools and hospitals in handling 12 million illegals bankrupting them is "thumbing their noses" at the huddled masses.
There is immigration, and there is trespassing. And if American ideals transcended geography we wouldn't have a banana republic directly south of our border.
I respectfully disagree with the argument that immigration is a strict, absolute issue where law-abiding is the good side and law-breaking is the evil side. If you want to see the issue like a robot sees a digital bit, then there's no room for discourse. They are illegal, you win.
I prefer to see the issue in shades of grey. The people who come here to improve their lives are doing exactly what I would do in their situation. This country is a wonderful place, and I can't chastise people for risking life and limb to escape the debacle that is south of our border.
I also reject the notion that illegal immigration is an economic calamity and drain on social services as it is claimed. Most illegal immigrants want to work, produce, contribute. They want to be part of this economic system. They are no more freeloaders than the homegrown variety. If more immigrants were allowed in the country, the aggregate economic benefit would far eclipse the increased demands on social services.
I do not see illegal immigrants as criminals. I see them as innocent people whose rational actions have been criminalized by a misguided government. The government needs to see the opportunity here and put aside the xenophobia.
Illegal immigration is a crime, thus illegal immigrants are criminals. Further, studies have shown that some 20 percent of the illegals coming to this country do have criminal records – an astounding percentage – which means a highly disproportionate number of illegal immigrants are criminals even by your charitable definition.
Additionally, if you research the cost of prisons, schools and hospitals for illegal immigrants in the states where they are most heavily concentrated, you will find that cost to be horrific. It is no surprise California is bankrupt; the cost of providing social services to illegals represents the majority of that state's persistent budget deficit.
It is a decided statement on the quality and rationality of American discourse that an exhortation to enforce American law is termed "xenophobia." I don't know how to properly debate the subject with someone so divorced from reality.
To properly debate the subject, I might suggest declaring reasons to support the law rather than just pointing to the law itself. Again, if this is a debate over boolean logic, you win. Illegal immigrants are illegal. It's impossible to dispute that.
You bring up an excellent point about a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants being criminals. It's a scary thought to envision the country being flooded with criminals. Although statistics on illegal immigrants are notoriously difficult to verify, let's assume this 20% criminal element is true. Is this grounds to deliberately bar the (otherwise) law-abiding immigrants access to this economic system? I think not. Do you support Jim Crow laws because a disproportionate number of black men are convicted of violent crimes? Of course not! Immigration law that banishes good, hard-working people, brands them as criminals, and treats them as equals to sycophants who are unfortunately associated with the community is foolish. Should immigration laws be enforced? Sure. But let's spend our time more reasonably. If it were easier for good people to get in, it would be easier to enforce the law to protect us against the true criminals. Allow in the good. Keep out the bad. Let's be smart about deciding the difference.
You make another good point about the cost of social services. Certainly, this is a frightening thought that all the public's resources are given away to people who don't earn them. But is it true that illegal immigrants are a massive drain on government spending? A 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined 29 reports on state and local costs published over 15 years and determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/)
For the sake of argument, let's assume that your assumption is correct. Illegal immigrants consume a disproportionate amount of public resources like schools and hospitals. Should they be barred from hospitals or schools based on the fact that they didn’t pay enough into the system? Using that logic there are an awful lot of American citizens that don’t qualify for those services. 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax! (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm). Until Americans deny the same services to freeloading citizens, the assertion can be boiled down to: foreigners should be barred from social services because they were born on the wrong side of the border. All men are created equal, unless you were born on the wrong side of the Rio Grande. If your argument is against freeloading, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But this is about immigration. It’s better in the long run to accept the hard work and creativity of immigrants into this economy.
If you want to enforce immigration laws, write the laws so that immigrating illegally is something that only a true criminal would do. Our present immigration laws are so difficult to enforce because it doesn't make sense to criminalize people who have committed no offense against another person.
We have the right as a nation to decide who we allow in and who we don't. It's a right that every nation on earth exerts.
Another study shows that 29 percent of illegal immigrants in California receive welfare payments. Now, if you're OK with the idea that illegals should be denied social services unless they foot the bill for them we'll come to a fairly quick agreement on the subject – and my guess is through attrition you're going to get precisely the right kind of folks in here without doing much of anything in terms of setting limits to it.
Furthermore, I'm not opposed to immigration at all. I think we should be brain-draining every other country in the world of their physicists, entrepreneurs, doctors, industrialists and power forwards. What I'm opposed to is TRESPASSING. And whether you might think these poor waifs who sneaked across our borders like thieves in the night should be embraced with open arms or not, the fact is we have laws which are being flouted because our politicians refuse to enforce them. Let's enforce the law, control our border, protect our citizens who live along it from Mexican drug gangs and human traffickers – and THEN we can discuss whether to liberalize our immigration policy.
When you say, "Let's enforce the law, control our border, protect our citizens who live along it from Mexican drug gangs and human traffickers – and THEN we can discuss whether to liberalize our immigration policy." I agree with this statement. My point is that you can't do that effectively if the law mandates that you throw the baby out with the bath water. Politicians refuse to enforce the law because they know that it is unpopular to banish people's neighbors and families who have committed no offense against anyone.
We share similar concerns. Neither of us want public resources wasted. Neither of us want criminals flooding the country. Our difference is in how to attack the problem. Fences, trenches, and the banishment of 12 million people is not the answer. It's much easier to put restraint on the generosity of public resources than it is to chain the human spirit.
Let's control our borders, enforce the law. Yes! But let's make immigration law reasonable so it doesn't fall into the same category as those other inane laws that I posted. And, no. Those are not dishonest statements. It should not be taken lightly that our government can so wantonly pass laws to cast good people as criminals.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." – Ayn Rand
It isn't necessary to banish anyone. Put up a fence at the border and patrol it, stop employers from hiring illegals with stiff fines and other means, make illegals pay cash for things like hospital stays or public school tuition and they'll leave on their own. Most of them are not here to become Americans; they're here to make money and send it home. When you're at four percent unemployment and you've got a labor shortage, it's OK to look the other way on that. When you're at 10 percent unemployment you've got to take care of your own first – the first people who ought to be unemployed are the trespassers.
But once you've attrited your illegals down to a level the majority of the country feels is manageable, you need to embark on an immigration policy which seeks to greatly expand the national skill set and economic potential. Taking in the "wretched refuse" of every other nation around the world was a good call 100 years ago when our nation was underpopulated and we didn't have a welfare state; what we want now is folks who have the skills and attributes to help us – and what's more, who will assimilate into American culture.
"When you're at four percent unemployment and you've got a labor shortage, it's OK to look the other way on that."
-What happened to your staunch regard to the law? It is acceptable to break the law when it's mutually beneficial? Perhaps your argument isn't about reverence for the law after all.
"you've got to take care of your own first "
-Well alright! This isn't necessarily about immigration laws, we're talking about protectionism. I fully understand this argument and respectfully disagree with this as a premise to restrict immigration. I believe in a capitalist system where no one is immune from competition. If I need to have my car fixed, I really don't care where the mechanic was born as long as it gets fixed at a reasonable price. I feel sad when I hear Americans cry because an immigrant stole their job, but competition is the American way. In today's global economy, I have to compete every day for my job, and so does everybody else. There are no free passes.
"Taking in the 'wretched refuse' of every other nation around the world was a good call 100 years ago when our nation was underpopulated…"
- I refuse to call immigrants "wretched refuse," no matter how poor or uneducated. Our economy can find a place at the table for anyone who wants in…anyone! If you wonder what gives the anti-immigrant movement the smell of xenophobia, it's using terms like "wretched refuse" instead of "human beings".
"…who will assimilate into American culture."
- To me, immigrants who come to this country wanting to work and provide a better life for themselves and their families embody what American culture is all about. When anti-immigrationers talk about assimilating, it just sounds like they're afraid that their kids might grow up to speak Spanish, watch Telemundo, listen to Salsa, or <gasp> marry someone with brown skin. Since that's obviously not what you meant, please elaborate on what it means to assimilate into American culture. Is assimilation what one might do to live in a country illegally for years without being deported? If so, I have a feeling that there are thousands if not millions of people in this country who have proven that they can "assimilate" just fine.
Your problem is that you confuse immigration with trespassing as if they are one and the same.
If there is a labor shortage, the cost-benefit analysis argument which says it's too hard to take the political and economic steps to rigidly enforce immigration laws only to exacerbate a problem illegals serve to mitigate might have some purchase, and illegal immigration becomes less of a priority despite the difficulties it causes. When there is a labor surplus, that calculation goes away.
Capitalism involves the rule of law. Illegal immigrants violate the law. It isn't protectionism at all to see them in that light at a time when the economy cannot absorb them into the workforce. As I've said, I'm happy to liberalize the immigration laws when we know who is coming in and have control of that process.
As for your insinuation of racism in response to my identification of a distinct American culture worthy of preservation, I suggest you take some time and pay attention to La Raza and MEChA – and then decide for yourself if members of those groups have any interest in joining us rather than Balkanizing us. You might also pay attention to the many tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood in this country and other Western countries and decide for yourself if their cultural leanings can be reconciled with ours. There are people out there who aren't like us, don't want to be like us and want us to change who we are in our own country. In Europe, they're demanding the host country assimilate to THEM, and not the other way around.
If I may add one more thing in response to your argument that "Illegal immigration is a crime, thus illegal immigrants are criminals."
Ever break a promise? You're a criminal. RS14:125 http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=7829…
Ever get a blistering sunburn? You're a criminal. RS 14:403.4 http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=7852…
Ever yell insults at a boxing match? You're a criminal. RS 4:81 http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=9696…
See how easy it is for the government to brand you a criminal? Just be glad that you can't be deported!
Those are totally disingenuous and dishonest statements unworthy of a serious discussion of a serious issue.
I respectfully disagree with the argument that immigration is a strict, absolute issue where law-abiding is the good side and law-breaking is the evil side. If you want to see the issue like a robot sees a digital bit, then there's no room for discourse. They are illegal, you win.
I prefer to see the issue in shades of grey. The people who come here to improve their lives are doing exactly what I would do in their situation. This country is a wonderful place, and I can't chastise people for risking life and limb to escape the debacle that is south of our border.
I also reject the notion that illegal immigration is an economic calamity and drain on social services as it is claimed. Most illegal immigrants want to work, produce, contribute. They want to be part of this economic system. They are no more freeloaders than the homegrown variety. If more immigrants were allowed in the country, the aggregate economic benefit would far eclipse the increased demands on social services.
I do not see illegal immigrants as criminals. I see them as innocent people whose rational actions have been criminalized by a misguided government. The government needs to see the opportunity here and put aside the xenophobia.
Illegal immigration is a crime, thus illegal immigrants are criminals. Further, studies have shown that some 20 percent of the illegals coming to this country do have criminal records – an astounding percentage – which means a highly disproportionate number of illegal immigrants are criminals even by your charitable definition.
Additionally, if you research the cost of prisons, schools and hospitals for illegal immigrants in the states where they are most heavily concentrated, you will find that cost to be horrific. It is no surprise California is bankrupt; the cost of providing social services to illegals represents the majority of that state's persistent budget deficit.
It is a decided statement on the quality and rationality of American discourse that an exhortation to enforce American law is termed "xenophobia." I don't know how to properly debate the subject with someone so divorced from reality.
To properly debate the subject, I might suggest declaring reasons to support the law rather than just pointing to the law itself. Again, if this is a debate over boolean logic, you win. Illegal immigrants are illegal. It's impossible to dispute that.
You bring up an excellent point about a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants being criminals. It's a scary thought to envision the country being flooded with criminals. Although statistics on illegal immigrants are notoriously difficult to verify, let's assume this 20% criminal element is true. Is this grounds to deliberately bar the (otherwise) law-abiding immigrants access to this economic system? I think not. Do you support Jim Crow laws because a disproportionate number of black men are convicted of violent crimes? Of course not! Immigration law that banishes good, hard-working people, brands them as criminals, and treats them as equals to sycophants who are unfortunately associated with the community is foolish. Should immigration laws be enforced? Sure. But let's spend our time more reasonably. If it were easier for good people to get in, it would be easier to enforce the law to protect us against the true criminals. Allow in the good. Keep out the bad. Let's be smart about deciding the difference.
You make another good point about the cost of social services. Certainly, this is a frightening thought that all the public's resources are given away to people who don't earn them. But is it true that illegal immigrants are a massive drain on government spending? A 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined 29 reports on state and local costs published over 15 years and determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/)
For the sake of argument, let's assume that your assumption is correct. Illegal immigrants consume a disproportionate amount of public resources like schools and hospitals. Should they be barred from hospitals or schools based on the fact that they didn’t pay enough into the system? Using that logic there are an awful lot of American citizens that don’t qualify for those services. 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax! (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm). Until Americans deny the same services to freeloading citizens, the assertion can be boiled down to: foreigners should be barred from social services because they were born on the wrong side of the border. All men are created equal, unless you were born on the wrong side of the Rio Grande. If your argument is against freeloading, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But this is about immigration. It’s better in the long run to accept the hard work and creativity of immigrants into this economy.
If you want to enforce immigration laws, write the laws so that immigrating illegally is something that only a true criminal would do. Our present immigration laws are so difficult to enforce because it doesn't make sense to criminalize people who have committed no offense against another person.
We have the right as a nation to decide who we allow in and who we don't. It's a right that every nation on earth exerts.
Another study shows that 29 percent of illegal immigrants in California receive welfare payments. Now, if you're OK with the idea that illegals should be denied social services unless they foot the bill for them we'll come to a fairly quick agreement on the subject – and my guess is through attrition you're going to get precisely the right kind of folks in here without doing much of anything in terms of setting limits to it.
Furthermore, I'm not opposed to immigration at all. I think we should be brain-draining every other country in the world of their physicists, entrepreneurs, doctors, industrialists and power forwards. What I'm opposed to is TRESPASSING. And whether you might think these poor waifs who sneaked across our borders like thieves in the night should be embraced with open arms or not, the fact is we have laws which are being flouted because our politicians refuse to enforce them. Let's enforce the law, control our border, protect our citizens who live along it from Mexican drug gangs and human traffickers – and THEN we can discuss whether to liberalize our immigration policy.
When you say, "Let's enforce the law, control our border, protect our citizens who live along it from Mexican drug gangs and human traffickers – and THEN we can discuss whether to liberalize our immigration policy." I agree with this statement. My point is that you can't do that effectively if the law mandates that you throw the baby out with the bath water. Politicians refuse to enforce the law because they know that it is unpopular to banish people's neighbors and families who have committed no offense against anyone.
We share similar concerns. Neither of us want public resources wasted. Neither of us want criminals flooding the country. Our difference is in how to attack the problem. Fences, trenches, and the banishment of 12 million people is not the answer. It's much easier to put restraint on the generosity of public resources than it is to chain the human spirit.
Let's control our borders, enforce the law. Yes! But let's make immigration law reasonable so it doesn't fall into the same category as those other inane laws that I posted. And, no. Those are not dishonest statements. It should not be taken lightly that our government can so wantonly pass laws to cast good people as criminals.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." – Ayn Rand
It isn't necessary to banish anyone. Put up a fence at the border and patrol it, stop employers from hiring illegals with stiff fines and other means, make illegals pay cash for things like hospital stays or public school tuition and they'll leave on their own. Most of them are not here to become Americans; they're here to make money and send it home. When you're at four percent unemployment and you've got a labor shortage, it's OK to look the other way on that. When you're at 10 percent unemployment you've got to take care of your own first – the first people who ought to be unemployed are the trespassers.
But once you've attrited your illegals down to a level the majority of the country feels is manageable, you need to embark on an immigration policy which seeks to greatly expand the national skill set and economic potential. Taking in the "wretched refuse" of every other nation around the world was a good call 100 years ago when our nation was underpopulated and we didn't have a welfare state; what we want now is folks who have the skills and attributes to help us – and what's more, who will assimilate into American culture.
"When you're at four percent unemployment and you've got a labor shortage, it's OK to look the other way on that."
-What happened to your staunch regard to the law? It is acceptable to break the law when it's mutually beneficial? Perhaps your argument isn't about reverence for the law after all.
"you've got to take care of your own first "
-Well alright! This isn't necessarily about immigration laws, we're talking about protectionism. I fully understand this argument and respectfully disagree with this as a premise to restrict immigration. I believe in a capitalist system where no one is immune from competition. If I need to have my car fixed, I really don't care where the mechanic was born as long as it gets fixed at a reasonable price. I feel sad when I hear Americans cry because an immigrant stole their job, but competition is the American way. In today's global economy, I have to compete every day for my job, and so does everybody else. There are no free passes.
"Taking in the 'wretched refuse' of every other nation around the world was a good call 100 years ago when our nation was underpopulated…"
- I refuse to call immigrants "wretched refuse," no matter how poor or uneducated. Our economy can find a place at the table for anyone who wants in…anyone! If you wonder what gives the anti-immigrant movement the smell of xenophobia, it's using terms like "wretched refuse" instead of "human beings".
"…who will assimilate into American culture."
- To me, immigrants who come to this country wanting to work and provide a better life for themselves and their families embody what American culture is all about. When anti-immigrationers talk about assimilating, it just sounds like they're afraid that their kids might grow up to speak Spanish, watch Telemundo, listen to Salsa, or <gasp> marry someone with brown skin. Since that's obviously not what you meant, please elaborate on what it means to assimilate into American culture. Is assimilation what one might do to live in a country illegally for years without being deported? If so, I have a feeling that there are thousands if not millions of people in this country who have proven that they can "assimilate" just fine.
Your problem is that you confuse immigration with trespassing as if they are one and the same.
If there is a labor shortage, the cost-benefit analysis argument which says it's too hard to take the political and economic steps to rigidly enforce immigration laws only to exacerbate a problem illegals serve to mitigate might have some purchase, and illegal immigration becomes less of a priority despite the difficulties it causes. When there is a labor surplus, that calculation goes away.
Capitalism involves the rule of law. Illegal immigrants violate the law. It isn't protectionism at all to see them in that light at a time when the economy cannot absorb them into the workforce. As I've said, I'm happy to liberalize the immigration laws when we know who is coming in and have control of that process.
As for your insinuation of racism in response to my identification of a distinct American culture worthy of preservation, I suggest you take some time and pay attention to La Raza and MEChA – and then decide for yourself if members of those groups have any interest in joining us rather than Balkanizing us. You might also pay attention to the many tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood in this country and other Western countries and decide for yourself if their cultural leanings can be reconciled with ours. There are people out there who aren't like us, don't want to be like us and want us to change who we are in our own country. In Europe, they're demanding the host country assimilate to THEM, and not the other way around.
If I may add one more thing in response to your argument that "Illegal immigration is a crime, thus illegal immigrants are criminals."
Ever break a promise? You're a criminal. RS14:125 http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=7829…
Ever get a blistering sunburn? You're a criminal. RS 14:403.4 http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=7852…
Ever yell insults at a boxing match? You're a criminal. RS 4:81 http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=9696…
See how easy it is for the government to brand you a criminal? Just be glad that you can't be deported!
Those are totally disingenuous and dishonest statements unworthy of a serious discussion of a serious issue.