O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

As many of you have done, I too have laid my eyes on that plaque inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. Thinking tonight, during a long drive home, I came to the realization that this country does need immigration reform.

I'm tired of being a lazy and apathetic nation. I'm tired of being a nation so caught up in every day life and petty bickering that we're slowing forgetting who we are, where we came from. I'm tired of being a nation where the good ideas that our founders fought and died for some 200 plus years ago are void where prohibited by law. I'm tired of being a nation where we allow that to happen.

Now, I'm not calling for a return the "good old days" from the 18th, 19th, or 20th Centuries. Our predecessors did a lot right, but they did a lot wrong too. But, there's no reason we can't do better. There's no reason the next generation can't be the "greatest generation."

How do we do that? Well, I'm sure there's a lot of different answers to that question, but I'm going to give you mine. I honestly don't know if there's a lot of hope left in my generation. We're to lazy, to fat, to happy, to apathetic. We're just smiling and happy to be here because, as a generation, we've never known real strife.

But, I believe this old girl has a few kicks left in her. So, we open the door.

"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-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

No quotas, no special exceptions, and only three caveats. You want to come to the United States? Come on in, sit down and sit a spell. Make yourself at home. The caveats?

One: No violent felons. If you have been convicted of a violent felony in your nation or if you are under investigation for a violent felony in your originating nation, you're out. No visa.

Two: You must work and/or go to school (if you're here seeking post-secondary education). No welfare benefits until you earn full citizenship.

Three: Unless you're actively seeking an undergraduate or post graduate degree, you must progress down the path to citizenship including taking classes in English as a second language (at your own expense) if you are not already fluent.

I may be an idealist. But, I do believe that if you get people that want to be here. That truly, desperately want to be here and are willing to abide by those three rules, we'll see people seizing the much lauded "American Dream" and we'll see people that are willing to make sure that it's not ruined by some bureaucrat.

Will it be a painful process? Sure. But, nothing this nation hasn't been through before.

Discuss, verbally abuse me, throw tomatoes, whatever. Just my wandering thought for the night.

 

I get misty-eyed reading that poem. "A mighty woman with a torch," indeed.

Do I want immigrants to come here? Hell, yes. Do I think we need them? Absolutely. And we should try to draw all the ambitious, talented, and hardworking people from the rest of the world we can; truly, we prosper when they come here and are able to use their gifts.

However, coming here MUST be about wanting to be an American, wanting to "breathe free." It must never be about getting free stuff. Coming here should be an opportunity, not a license to live off the taxpayers.

 

i feel much the same about the UK, alas the state does not

 

While well intended these caveats are impractical.

This is dependent upon the legitimacy of foreign legal systems.

Impossible to enforce and mandatory employment will create a great opportunity for worker exploitation.

Making English mandatory is a part of requiring assimilation. While I agree that English should be the official language and all public publications should only be provided in one language I don't consider speaking it fluently a requirement to live here.


A better approach would be to end all variety of welfare. Or more simply put, end the free ride. Because let's be honest, there is no free ride, it's just that somebody else is being forced to pick up your tab.

 

[YT="Remember Freedom"]FT4WD1xXbgU&[/YT]

^powerful ad... Wow.

I've always liked this spot the Ad Council did right after 9/11...

[yt=""I Am An American": E Pluribus Unum"]vDzEz6-v4Wc&[/yt]

That's the short version, the 60 sec version is much better, but whoever manages the Ad Council's youtube page and main website did a shit job of encoding their videos...

[yt=""I Am An American" full spot"]T_5XIOn68Hk[/yt]

I think it's cool just to see the crazy Asian guy in the flag bandana shout "I AM AMERICA!"

I also like the other post 9/11 PSA they did that shows an unadorned empty street, and the announcer says:

On September 11th, terrorists tried to change America forever...

*screen goes black*

...They succeeded.

*screen cuts to same street, a flag in front of every single house*

Even to a jaded liberal like me, who gets sick of jingoistic flag waving, especially post 911, that ad made me a bit misty...

ETA:...ah, and here it is:

[yt="Freedom"]OreiH9yBUqo[/yt]

(Note, these are the first ad's the Ad Council did all by themselves - were the sole signatory - and not in conjunction with any other group: http://www.adcouncil.org/default.aspx?id=141 )

 

I went back and added that very first one, "Remember Freedom"...

We really don't know how well some of us have it made.

Not just Americans, but Canadians, Europeans, Australians...

We may disagree on things like gun control, and socialized medicine, but we don't have purges and mass genocide.

 

That's with the current immigration rate of a million or so a year.

The bureaucracy necessary to do what you propose would be staggering.

The US census bureau projects with current levels of population growth and immigration, the US population will be 1 BILLION by 2100. That's unsustainable.

Do you want to live in India or the PRC?

I watched my sleepy burg where I grew up, with 1 high school, no movie theatre and everyone knowing each other shoot up from 10,000 people to 50,000 people in 15 years because the economy was good.

The government was overwhelmed in terms of infrastructure, the roads were inadequate, the schools were overtaxed, the power grid teetered, crime increased, and bureaucracy went through the roof to handle the excess population.

It would happen in the entire fucking country.

Let alone that it isn't natural for people to integrate. Most often that doesn't happen until their kids grow up in the region. Balkanization would occur.

And lots of the people who would come would be the poorest, least educated, and most likely to commit crime.

As it stands right now, there's a larger percentage of first and second generation American immigrants right now than there are at any other time in US history.

Unlimited immigration?

Not only no, but FUCK NO.

 

Isn't that kind of contradicted by American history?

 

Yep.

First generation immigrants often don't assimilate, and stick to immigrant communities. but their kids almost always learn English and assimilate, and by the third generation they are pretty much completely integrated.

Here the nearby Beardstown, which has a had a huge influx of Mexican-Americans in the past decade, some of the most vocal supporters of the new immigrants are the great great grandchildren of the German immigrants (who themselves faced discrimination problems)...they seem to take a "Hey, our people adapted in time, they will too."

Great.

Mexican-Midwesterners.

Just what we need.

 

First generation immigrant often don't integrate. Go to any city's little Italy, Chinatown, little Vietnam, etc.

Their kids do.

If the US announced an open door policy we'd have a huge influx of first generation immigrants. There's about 4-5 million waiting in the system right now, and that's with the 'broken' immigration service in place that everyone decries.

That would skyrocket under an open door policy.

Oh, and add to that the 10-20 million illegals already here.

The number of non-integrated immigrants would increase dramatically.

 

OK, that does it.

If Ron Paul isn't on the ballot, I'm voting for Elwood and Paladin.

 

And if they get elected and do something like this that would totally fuck this country up, I'm voting from the rooftops.

 

Again, a Billion US citizens in a hundred years if we make no changes.

How quick do we get to a billion if we open up the doors? 50 years? Less?

The only reason we wouldn't is because the overpopulation would make people want to live in a place with a higher quality of life.

 

I actually do worry about Balkanization.

I worry when I see people self-segregate into little insular communities. Mexicans, blacks, even rich whites in gated communities...they all do it.

(Whites will say "See the Mexicans, the blacks, they won't adapt, they won't integrate, they don't respect our whatever...so we are just gonna go off here and live behind a big wall." Yeah, way to reach out there and build bridges...)

To be honest, as I have said before, I do find a lot of anti-immigrant and English-only folks I have seen and heard to be motivated by obvious personal xenophobia and bigotry.

But at the same time, I think we need a common language (or set of them) because without a way we an all communicate, we have no common identity, and without that, we aren't a nation anymore. Not a team anymore.

We are nothing. I think diversity important, in society as in evolution, but what good is it if there is no unity and cooperation?

It doesn't matter how tall or short or what sex or color the team members are, but if they can't talk to each other, they aren't much of a goddamn team.

Look at Canada...look how close they came to breaking up along lines of language.

People still complain about desegregation, call it "social engineering"...and it is...but hey, what would you rather have, a nation of ghettos and gated communities with no common understanding...no common anything?

Sometimes people need a kick in the ass.

 

If you complain again about not being able to find good Mexican food, I'm going to come to Illinois and slap you.

 

And you know what? I don't think that the US is anti-immigrant even now.

We allow more legal immigration than any other country in the world.

In 1700 there were 1 million people in the area the now comprises the United States.

In 1800 there were 5.2 million.

In 1900 it jumped to 76 million.

In 2000 it was 281 million.

And current estimates have 2100 at 1 billion.

We need to control our population better - because I don't want to have my kid have to have a permit to have his own.

 

Elwood is completely right. I come from immigrants, mostly Irish, but my grandfather came here from Dresden as a small child at the start of the 1900s, worked his way through Syracuse U. and became an Electrical Engineer and ultimately, Executive VP, NY Telephone.

Oddly, he only spoke two languages: English and Spanish (after his stint at Ma Bell, he ran South American operations for ITT).

We got stronger, smarter and better after immigration — which is kind of a self-selecting filter. If people know it will be tough and they'll have to work hard (with Elwood's conditions), only those smart enough to see the possibilities and those with the right work ethic will come here for the most part. Like it or not, we need these people as much as they need us — they strengthen the American breed, bring new insight and frankly, do the jobs that most Americans think are beneath them.

We've lost our way and this will help remind us of what made America great in the first place.

 

Sorry, but I think the time for immigration of any kind has come to an end. We have enough problems with the people who are already here. Immigration served it's purpose in the past, but we already have too much congestion in this country. Time to put a stop to it for awhile.

I don't want a country with a billion citizens. I need space.

 

Hmmm.

Well, if we're going to start an open immigration policy again, I'd better start a non-partisan anti-Chinese league so we can keep down undesirables such as Scorponok.

 

I find the "over-population" hysteria in this thread amusing.

The population of France is roughly 60 million. (A little more, but we'll round it off to make it simple.) The U.S. is 17 times the size of France. France is the least densely populated country in Western Europe. And there is still lots of room here to "get out into the country."

That means that a billion people could easily live in the present territory of the United States, especially as "Yankee know-how" always seems to work out some rather ingenious ways of dealing with just about any problem.

Furthermore, if there are no free hand-outs for people, and integration into the country (including obeying its laws) is a condition for staying, just how many people are going to want to come to the U.S. anyway? How many of those who are there already would want to stay if there were no free hand-outs any more? Sure, immigration would increase, but not to the extent and for as long as the far-right hysteria would seem to imagine. It's not like half the world's population would end up concentrated inside the United States.

And if the place does end up over-populated, we'll just annex Canada. They've got lots of room, eh?

 

:rofl3::rofl3::rofl3::rofl3::rofl3:

Yeah, that's the way it will work.

90% of the world has a worse economy than the United States.

They will come in droves for the economic opportunities.

Hard for a US citizen is fucking paradise for half the third world countries.

 

Maybe so, but change is very hard for people — most people didn't immigrate from Europe when the opportunity was there, did they? I know Russian immigrants who were doctors back home and have to work as lab techs here, others who were lawyers there and now are software programmers here.

And maybe, just maybe, it might be nice to have some people here who appreciate how much better things are here instead of just whining about what they don't have.

 

Async -

Yeah, France is exactly what I don't want the US to become. Overpopulation leads to overregulation. The reason that Europe is largely socialized is because the associated problems with that large a population.

And there's still balkanization in France that leads to rioting and destruction of property on a veritable ongoing basis.

That's about as good a reason as to manage our already world leading immigration quotas as I've heard.

 

You're anti-immigration, we get it Demiurge.

 

Nope, I'm not arguing that we should reduce immigration from the level it is now - the most in the world.

I'm arguing that opening up completely is a really stupid idea.

Maybe why not a single country in the world has that policy.

 

As for my own opinion on the matter.

I think most of the problems that occur in this country are a result of the welfare state and the changing economic nature of the United States, that is, from a manufacturing economy to a information/knowledge based economy.

Because of the differences in public services offered now versus the early 20th century, we would see a widespread collapse of services.

That being said, I'm not against unlimited immigration, I just want one caveat, which is more stringent. You must have an education, that is to say, you must have the rough equivalent of at least a two year associates degree.

Why the requirement? America doesn't have the same use for cheap immigrant labor that it used to, hell, minimum wage laws prevent such a thing. We are also not nearly as engaged in manufacturing. So by bringing over an educated workforce we place more emphasis on our citizens to become educated, and it forces colleges to become more competitive due to an influx of foreign college graduates.

 

Oh, France and Germany don't even allow free immigration from within the EU, despite that being the policy of the EU as a whole.

And those racist bastards in the United States accept more than twice the amount of refugees then the next nine countries in the world, combined.

 

You have committed a major fallacy here. France was overregulated centuries before there was anything like the current population. How much do you know about French history, anyway? What do you think the French Revolution was all about? France's approach to government can be traced back to its Frankish origins, when there was no such concept as a "state" with "citizens," but merely a kingdom that was the personal property of the king. When Louis XIV said, "I am the state!" he was working on the basis of a long-established tradition. Post hoc ergo propter hoc simply doesn't work, my friend. Especially when the "hoc" was around long before.

As to your remark about the "balkanization in France that leads to rioting and destruction of property," there again you are assigning the cause to a factor that has nothing to do with it, simply because it suits your argument. The cause of the problems in France is not "balkanization" but the lenient, leftist approach to law enforcement. The young people, the ones who cause the most problems among the Arab population, are the ones who are the most integrated into French culture.

If Elwood's approach to government was tied into immigration, you would not have to deal with either over-regulation or balkanization.

I'm still voting "Elwood-Paladin" in '08!

 

In other words, you don't want the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, the homeless, tempest-tossed..."

Not a very American approach, IMHO.

Those who have nothing, but who are willing to apply themselves to earn it without expecting the government to provide for them and thinking they have a "right" to enjoy all the wealth that others might have, are a greater source of strength for a country than you seem to realize.

 

That's dreadfully apparent.

It's also not the argument.

The argument is that overpopulation leads to regulation as a way to balance the issues caused by the burgeoning population. Individual incidents cause more ripples in an overpopulated area because more people are effected.

The US is currently marching toward that level of regulation, a street camera on every corner, but I don't want to see it change from a march to a sprint.

Oh, and I disagree with the term 'overregulation' when applied to the French dynasties. The law system wasn't very deep - the nobility and clergy ran the country as they saw fit.

As I recall, one of the tipping points was the annual food riots in Paris - because they couldn't feed their population. A large amount of that was due to government corruption, but ultimately the social system failed the populace in their most basic need - nutrition.

Don't be absurd and argue that the amount of nutrition each citizen recieved had nothing to do with the absolute number of citizens.

The Revolution happened most of all because the quality of life of the average citizen had become almost unendurable, because the state wasn't capable of handling the issues.

So yes, I'd say the government's inability to deal with the population pressures of France where one of the prime reasons for the French Revolution.

People in the Colonies weren't starving en masse when they overthrew their government. The French peasants were.

Patently absurd. The average person of french descent in France wasn't rioting, it wasn't a riot of all the youth. It was a riot of the balkanized muslim youth population. Yes, of that ethnic group they young were the ones rioting. But that's because they had a depressed economy, with drastically worse job prospects than the children of ethnic french background.

The reason that the French police were so ineffectual was because of that balkanization - they had given up patrolling the ghettos in force long ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174670,00.html
The unrest is forcing France to confront long-simmering anger in its suburbs, where many Africans and their French-born children live on society's margins, struggling with unemployment, poor housing, racial discrimination, crime and a lack of opportunity.

Yeah, that sounds tremendously integrated.

Just the sheer number would require regulation. Either that or descend into chaos. I no more want India than I want Singapore.

Even the caveat that the 1st generation immigrants wouldn't be allowed social services until they achieve citizenship is a flawed argument.

Because it's not the immigration status that is at issue, it's the population density. As that rises, social organization has to rise to ensure quality of life. And in the modern age that's done through increased government involvement.

And in an alternate parallel reality where that was a possibility, I'd still be voting from the rooftops.

But fortunately in the reality we live in, people understand how much havoc that would cause, so there's absolutely no chance that it would be enacted.