Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why “It’s the Legality, Stupid” Immigration Argument Falls Flat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I agree with the editorial.
    I agree with the editorial in the sense that the legality or illegality of the illiterate Chiapas drywaller you fly in for your own purposes is generally immaterial to the choice of whether or not to deport him, and that focusing exclusively on the words 'legal' or 'illegal' is a fool's game. In general, whether you let a whole bunch of people into your country should be determined by your country's needs, not the needs of the people immigrating (news flash: the United States needs practically NO ONE to populate our wildernesses anymore, we can handle that on our own, and most studies show that the majority of immigrants concentrate in cities in any case, driving up land prices and crowding out the natives.)

    "Absolute moratorium until unemployment reaches less than 1%" or "America is full" sounds like a much better slogan to me. Most of the law needs to be made much more restrictive than it already is, let your slogans reflect that reality rather than a timid cringe toward the status quo favored by your enemies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I agree with the editorial.
    The editorial lies about Brat's stance on legal immigrants, and blatantly so.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    I agree with the editorial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Epoetker
    replied
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    I'd really like some meaningful commentary here, and not one line hyperbole.
    Nah, the hyperbole simply needs to be honed a bit. "Behead those who debase America's people" sounds a little better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Meta Knight
    replied
    Letting in millions of poor and unskilled immigrants is not, even a little bit, a lower cost to the taxpayers than border control efforts. That line of argumentation is a complete nonstarter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill the Cat
    replied
    I'd really like some meaningful commentary here, and not one line hyperbole.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jesse
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Add him to the list of people who should be lawfully executed for treason.
    I can't tell if this is an on going joke or...

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Add him to the list of people who should be lawfully executed for treason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Why “It’s the Legality, Stupid” Immigration Argument Falls Flat

    Source: http://barticles.blogs.timesdispatch.com/2014/07/22/legality-stupid-immigration-argument-falls-flat/


    Why “It’s the Legality, Stupid” Immigration Argument Falls Flat


    My Sunday column on immigration provoked a fair amount of feedback, as pretty much anything anyone says about immigration will do. The principal rebuttal (at least numerically) took issue with how I characterized immigration hawks. It was not accurate, some readers said, to suggest immigration hawks oppose immigration. What they object to is illegal immigration.

    Really? As Walter Williams would say, “let’s look at it.”

    First, some immigration hawks do object to (at least some) legal immigration. One salient example is Dave Brat, the Cantor Killer, who has argued that the U.S. shouldn’t even take high-skilled and Ph.D. immigrants, let alone unskilled workers. More broadly, there are groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies, which want to reduce legal immigration as well as the illegal kind.

    Second, the claim that immigration hawks are worked up about legal technicalities, not immigration itself, needs to be challenged. If what they say is true, then one obvious answer would be to return the U.S. to the open-borders policy it had until the early 1920s. If the immigration hawks are sincere, then they will not mind doing this, since it resolves the legal question — and at a far lower cost to the taxpayers than massive border-control efforts.

    On the other hand, if the hawks blanche at the idea of greatly increasing legal entry to the U.S., then their objection really is all about immigration per se, and the legality question is simply a fig leaf to cover it up.

    Posted by A. Barton Hinkle
    – editor and columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and contributor to Reason magazine.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Thoughts?

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 05-25-2022, 07:46 AM
58 responses
349 views
0 likes
Last Post Juvenal
by Juvenal
 
Started by mossrose, 05-24-2022, 05:08 PM
15 responses
117 views
0 likes
Last Post seanD
by seanD
 
Started by seer, 05-24-2022, 03:59 PM
308 responses
1,948 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by seer, 05-24-2022, 01:26 PM
8 responses
66 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by seer, 05-23-2022, 12:33 PM
25 responses
183 views
0 likes
Last Post seanD
by seanD
 
Working...
X