TED Conversations

Ehis Odijie


This conversation is closed.

Do you support unrestricted Immigration?

I do.

Restriction of people, if you come to think of it, makes no sense from a social standpoint. How can you restrict the movement of someone to a geographical fiction called Nation? YES the Nation state is a fiction but that is not what we are discussing here.

From an economic standpoint, free movement of people is the only way to achieve Factor price equalization and true free trade which will benefit all.

From a political standpoint – it is a way of achieving peace just as European Union has brought peace to the EU.

It will lead to a reduction of wages from the more advanced country – globalization is already doing that. That is part of the Factor price equalization by Paul Samuelson.

Do you? and why?

  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: No... Less restricted, for sure. If every nation immigrated as many people as the US does every year, we'd have much more fluid and healthy borders. The US should expand immigration policy... but the truth is that unrestricted immigration, would just flood socialist countries with people looking for handouts.

    The place that can't afford unrestricted immigration, is the EU. If all societies were based on freedom, and individual liberties, without social safety nets... I would support unrestricted immigration. Otherwise, it's basically economic warfare. Poor countries would literally kick their most desperate and sickly people out.

    Concept is good. If we had international laws that make sense I'd support it... but we don't. Israel wouldn't survive 1 month with open borders... just for an example. There are still millions of people willing to risk their lives to destroy it. Maybe next generation.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: "Poor countries would literally kick their most desperate and sickly people out."

      I remember Cuba emptying their jails during one episode of the battle between the United States and Cuba.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: Yes I do because a number of people who are living in developing countries must have the same opportunities like the others but then I think if Americans allow us to be there without any restriction then near half of our country will be there within a week so its a bad idea so there must be some rules like European Union all over the world.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: Noveed they do have more opportunities as far as economics go. It's no big secret that many industries have moved from the United States to the 3rd world. Procter and Gamble sell only about 15 % of their products in the USA the rest are sold in 3rd world countries, Europe and Asia.

      The reason they moved there is because the manufacturing and inventory warehouse are closer to the largest markets. It fundamental business sense. If your market is in, say, New York city, where would be the best place to put your manufacturing plant and warehouses? In New York of course.

      Most Americans don't realize that business moving offshore wasn't a government plot, it was a sound business move. We have enough intellectual power and entrepreneurial strength to create jobs that assist in these ventures and can create products that will increase our exports to other countries. the problem is, with globalization, it's cheaper to build the plant in the market area. so, we need to rethink our strategy and create products for our markets here at home. Instead of making it harder for foreign countries to create business and markets in our country, we should be helping them. Foreign business brings jobs to this country to create products for Americans because, by the same token, it's cheaper to build the manufacturing plant, which hire local workers, in the market area.

      If everyone would embrace globalization, Product manufacturing would be able to create jobs all over the world that are specific for the market. It's cheaper for China to build plants to make electronics that are target to be sold to US citizens if their plants are located in America. People just don't get it and they fight against it with tariffs, export quotas, etc. while these do put pressure on foreign countries to build here. Our mindset, for some reason, just doesn't get it. It's just business.


      Check out this TED video: http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_neuwirth_the_power_of_the_informal_economy.html
  • thumb
    Sep 18 2012: Unrestricted immigration is an application of the universal human right to mobility, which is in turn an application of the universal human right to liberty.

    So long as no one else's rights are being violated, every individual should be left free to live on his or her own terms, wherever they please, however they please.

    Once we accept these are fundamental principles, we will be able to create more rational and benevolent laws around mobility and ownership keeping in mind security, health, and economic impacts.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: Sounds very benevolent Jerry. I say we stay with the application process.

      While I agree with you in principle, trying to implement such an idea would be similar to giving our teenagers unrestricted rights to go where they want, when they want. They're just not ready for that kind of freedom. Maybe when these uprising are done and things settle down and education becomes the dominate tool to homogenized the world culture we might give it a try. Is TED available in China, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya?
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2012: TED is available in China, i don't know the situation in other countries.
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2012: That is too cool. How could I verify that?
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2012: at least he is giving answers on ted .you know althought we can not see drectly .but we can see that there is a collection of it .we can find in chinese website .and also i want tosay that we still need to work on cnnecting to the world .maybe not all things have been opened in chian.w still nee a lot
    • thumb
      Sep 20 2012: Jerry, great goal, but see some of my other comments below. Until nations are brought more into equal alignment in terms of economy, rule of law, political stability, etc, sudden liberation of this nature would be catastrophic.

      I hate to sound like an apologist for strict immigration, but the more I think about it the more I believe we should focus on helping others rise within their own national and cultural context before opening the floodgates.
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2012: Eric, Can we do this without spending National Tax Payers Money? Should this be a job for the UN?

        Chen, I don't see China as a proven super power. It is speculation only.
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2012: if we all think like you do .there wont be responsibility . the world may be not good as it i today .
          as a super county amrica,china we all have responsibility to take care of the world .
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2012: No. No way!

    Improve conditions in the poor and violent countries.

    Don't destroy the richer peaceful societies, with health and safety and environmental laws, with decent education, decent health systems etc.

    Life is not fair in regards to where and when you are born.

    You don't need to open borders to see more economic equalisation in a more globalised economy.

    Competition and free markets mean the rich countries can not sustain conditions for the majority.

    I suggest the concentration of wealth, capital in individuals is more worthy of focus. Higher taxes on ultra wealthy, reduce minimisation and avoidence, death duties.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: Put yourself in the shoes of others my friend. Why should the wealthy have to suffer the burdens of poverty?

      There are many ways to get ride of poverty. One is to do away with those who constantly fall into hole.

      To be truthful I don't know how to respond to your statement(s).

      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: I'm not saying zero immigration or refugees.
        The only reason Australia's population is growing is because of immigration.
        We are a rich country and should do our part.
        Just that completely open borders would be chaos.
        Everyone on average would be worse off than they are now.
        Meanwhile, we can work to improve conditions everywhere.
        One day the inequalities might be less localised and we can have open borders.
        Also, I personally wouldn't mind being taxed more to help improve the lot of others.
        I also help some charities. So I'm not suggesting every man or country is an island.
        I just don't think open borders would be net beneficial overall at this time.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: I understand. I see you Obey No1kinobe. :)

          I agree, it would be chaos. I think the author of this question, Ehis Odijie understands this also.

          I not only don't think they are doing their share but I'm convinced there is a plot afoot.

          I get my money from the taxpayers each month. I spend it all, pouring it back into the local economy. It's just my way of saying thanks. Many Veterans do this.

          The idea of open borders could only be realized after a long process. But, we have to start the process. It has to become a social idea along with the other ideas created by the globalization movement. Imagine, boarding a plane, going to Australia and having dinner with someone like us. We could spend some time really understanding one another then go home with new ideas, different perspectives, that you can't get on the internet.

          Imagine buying a ticket without all the passport issues.

          "Imagine there's no countries
          It isn't hard to do
          Nothing to kill or die for
          And no religion too
          Imagine all the people
          Living life in peace..." ~ John Lennon.
    • thumb
      Sep 20 2012: Obey, not sure I agree with everything you said, but I'm totally on board with how unlimited immigration would destroy healthy countries. Ask the South Korean government if they would be in favor of instantly dropping the border with North Korea. It seems like a noble goal; unification, but until the North Korean economy and standard of living are brought more into alignment, such a move would destroy the Korean economy for a very long time.

      The cause of freedom for all people around the globe should promote the free movement of people, without restriction, but as a practical matter, we have a long long way to go before such a move would do anything short of devastating the global economy, political structure, force of law, and infrastructure.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: Yes. If it is allowed I will be in Toronto, Canada tomorrow morning.
    But on a more serious note, I think the division of the world to nation states has given us the opportunity to have maintain law and order in the world.
    • thumb
      Sep 20 2012: Good point. Although I philosophically agree that the ability to visit, live, and work in the place of your choosing, with no restrictions, is the ultimate freedom, it is practically impossible since the concept of a nation-state would almost immediately become irrelevant.

      Do I like nationalism? Not really, but your point is well-taken. Moving governance to a global level would create the kind of bureaucracies on one hand and lawlessness on the other that make any current understanding of those terms seem infantile.

      Great goal, but human nature will have to alter dramatically for this goal to be realized. That being the current state, some level of immigration limits to protect national identity and cohesion is expected and probably wise.
  • Sep 21 2012: the point is that sooner or later we must think as humans, not national.
  • Sep 19 2012: Every individual should have the right to geographical mobility. However, I believe, that strict policies and standards should be inforced along with an agenda for a set period of time. If you can adapt to the surrounding environment you stay, if you fail to do so you go.
  • Sep 19 2012: Yes, and the front point is, countries don't exist anymore.

    With countries, people have different laws, morals, tax and benefit systems, religious tendency. If it's the reason for free immigration, the result will leave some culture gap between countries bigger and bigger, rich countries will lost their attraction by changing benefit plan because so many people unable to work will pour into those countries.

    For countries with wars for decades, for countries where poor people won't get any support from their government, for countries with rich resources being seized by other powerful countries, for countries with people get slaughtered for no reason, for countries with low education level plus poor environment and high birth rate, does free immigration change any of this?

    But, how can we live peace without country?

    First, religious, how people can be satisfied with the religious situation around them? If anybody can solve this problem, I agree it's worth more than ten times Noble Peace Price.
  • Sep 18 2012: What's wrong with looking at it like someone with science training? What's wrong with looking at it from the view of someone in the "know" in another way such as someone who has raisedlivestock. So we have How do we avoid the irresponsible conduct feared by scientistsor that conduct feared by anyone who has raised livestock? Malthus was an optimist with his idea of moral restraint. The idea we are commenting on here is that we should let the irresponsible or unfortunate mess up our best living plans.
  • Sep 16 2012: remember the order of the chaos, divide and conquer, all our governments in humanity are forms of control of the territory, in this world there is enough for everyone, but we make up private property and start competing for natural resources when the resource really precious freedom and respect for others
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: Those fences are just to keep the cows from eating all the corn. Don't take them literally.
  • Sep 16 2012: begin to understand that the planet earth has no owner, this planet is for everyone, the only nation that exists is the nation's life.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: Yes, in principle, no one really owns the planet but isn't occupation 9/10 ownership?
    • thumb
      Sep 20 2012: Great thought, Esteban, but when that philosophy came into conflict with human nature in North America, native Americans were driven almost off the face of the map by the unquenched human desire to own things.
  • thumb
    Sep 16 2012: We are a nation of all nations. All are welcome. All are to honor our constitution....anyone else...enjoy your visit. We are The United States of America do not marry us and expect us to change.
  • Sep 15 2012: "Do you support unrestricted Immigration?"

    When nation states will cease to exist the word "immigration" becomes meaningless. In today's world (where vast differences exist between nation states) unrestricted immigration should be an ideal to strive for but not something we should implement tomorrow because it could leave the average person, and even the worst off person, worse off afterwards instead of drawing everyone to the mean or improving the mean.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2012: Really? You think the mean is the place to be? We should draw people there? Let's just make everyone vanilla and be done with it.

      I prefer to leverage excellence. Even the 'worst off' persons.
      • Sep 15 2012: Which comment have you been reading? Certainly not mine.
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2012: It takes me a lot of time to even fathom what totally unrestricted immigration will bring about. So the poor people in less developed countries will pour into more developed countries, unless affected by religious faith. Then those developed countries might reach the point of crisis, unless countries just merge together and make a collective contribution to tackled problems. It does sound like a nice blueprint to achieve peace and equality. But I guess that won't happen for couple decades.

    Less restricted immigration policy might be what the world needs now.
  • Sep 13 2012: I support sustainable immigration, enough to fill the majority of jobs, while at the same time not trying to put too much of a strain on the healthcare system (I am in Canada), pension system, etc.

    Personnally I am more in favour of moving people around in ones own country in order to solve problems.
  • Sep 13 2012: Yes I do...

    People have all the rights to live where they want, and to go where they want.

    When Spaniards went to South America, were they invited? NO, they invaded the continent by force. they were living illegal there

    When The English went to India, Australia, New Zealand, and almost half of Africa, were they invited? NO, they were uninvited illegal guest who used force to be the master of someone else's home.

    Same did, Dutch In South Africa, French In North Africa, ...

    they might have forgotten one thing: "What goes around comes Around"
    Now it is their time to come over Spain, England, France, and make it their home (they these people do not use force)

    EU has never been in peace and will never be in peace.

    there is a separation and tension between North and South Europe.

    There is a good book about this North Europe and South Europe, it called: "the Mediterranean and the Barbarians of the North" by Luis Racionero (Spanish Anthropologist and sociologist )

    Ehis, you know what's going on between North Europe and South Europe, now the Northern Europeans called Pigsland to Southern Europe (PIGS - Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) Do you think the Southern Europe will accept this?
    I live in both areas, I got to know both society and mentality.
    • Sep 13 2012: "they might have forgotten one thing: "What goes around comes Around""
      So you and i are responsible for what people did centuries ago? And, why invent the wheel a second time? If you assume that a past long ago is a mandate for whatever in future, then todays generation has also the right to "invade". Why should people of today either be responsible, but not allowed to do the mistake?

      What i mean is, when you insult todays people for a past they were not involved, this will not be understand.

      "Do you think the Southern Europe will accept this?"
      I think the main problem is that this is a forced union. If i remember right, there was only one or two nations where the people could decide by vote if they wanted to be part of this, all others were forced by their governemnts.

      And if you ask the people, nobody is fine with how the south acts, nor how it is treated. Nobody wants this Union. We did much better in times before, were we were a trade union. That was also peaceful, all nations could manage their own countries and in risky times the europeans supported each other anyways.

      If you ask me, the todays union will either take down whole europe, or it will be canceled and we get back to a trade union.

      Look at the situation in Greece, what happens is a sell out and a nation that loses his autonomy. Same will happen in Spain, Italy too. And, people in north do not like that too. You can't force unity, and this was tried, but failed.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: Rome used to extend all the way into Britain. The Confederacy in the United States use to occupy the entire southern region of the USA.

      "And if you ask the people, nobody is fine with how the south acts, nor how it is treated. Nobody wants this Union. We did much better in times before, were we were a trade union. That was also peaceful, all nations could manage their own countries and in risky times the europeans supported each other anyways."

      This is a good point to consider but it brings up the reason for the change in the first place. What was the driving force behind the creation of the European Union?
      • Sep 14 2012: What was the driving force behind the creation of the European Union?

        Keep up with USA and USSR

        they wanted to be in competition... they wanted to show that they could stand up (after WW 2) and build a strong continent. They copied a bit from everyone. they created same banknote for EU as USSR had once. Now they want to have Blue Card as it is Green Card in US

        but they miss one and main thing, there are 27 languages and cultures, this will take generations to mix and trust between each our is missing too

        USSR was mixed because there was one in commend. Russia. plus, then there was not cell phones or internet.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: When the world speaks English, there won't be so much cultural differences and misunderstandings. You're English is getting better.
      • Sep 14 2012: then we have to open the borders and make the world a global village...
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: If people have those rights then the next time you're in the US try to walk into the White House uninvited.

      If someone tries to stop you just tell them you have the right...... :)
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: Yes and No

    On one hand if your country does not have borders how do you define the country? On the other hand it raises the standard of living for the immigrant and keeps cost down for the citizens.

    It displaces the more expensive workers, but this is also subject to the state subsidizing the immigrants through government transfers. This because of the specious meme of equality.

    The immigrants are a liability at the lower economic end a boon with the H-1B visa.

    At the end of the day the reason immigrants come to the U.S., the greatest country in the history of the world that has raised the standard of living of the world more than any other country, is FREEDOM. You know the Statue of Liberty near Ellis island.

    High quality individuals want the intangibles, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to defend yourself, a rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, private property, the best higher education in the world, the most ethically diverse country, the highest level of science, a consumer market to sell to, etc, etc, etc.

    Some would prefer the U.S. apologize to the rest of the world for some inane reason, the hell with that the U.S. has infinitely more to be proud of than not.

    The reason for the decline of this country is simply the erosion of these freedoms through growth and cost of government, which will probably be the end of the U.S.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: You are supporting the same protectionism you speak so beautifully against on different instances . . Here you want protection of America jobs and standard of living. How are you different from a protectionist- from an economic standpoint?
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: "You are supporting the same protectionism you speak so beautifully against on different instances . "
        Spare me the conjecture give me specifics.

        I said quit subsidizing the immigrants, that has nothing to do with protectionism.
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: Ehis, If the United States were, to put it in the words of a famous president, "Tear down this wall..." that separates Mexico from our country, the initial response would be overwhelming, economically and from a healthcare and logistic pint of view. Pat's reaction would be typical of the national reaction.

          I would add that tearing down the wall that separated Germany during the height of the Communist party rule has appeared to enhance Germany's influence and economic stature in Europe.

          I wonder if the wall separating Mexico and the Untied States were torn down, would it enhance our economic standing and Democratic influence in our hemisphere and the world?
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: It is a statement of fact, not disposition.
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: Nope I'm not advocating protectionism it is as obtuse as Hoover and Smoot Hawley.
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: John

        I did not indicate I wanted to save American jobs at all period.

        I don't think there would be much difference if they "tore down the wall", anyone who wants is here.

        I think initially tearing down the wall in Germany was a huge strain on the country. The only way it was advantage to Germany was if the immigrants had to respond to the market place which I doubt they did.
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: Pat said > "I don't think there would be much difference if they "tore down the wall", anyone who wants is here."

          Good point but many get caught going back to take money to their starving families or sick grandmother. Perhaps they should just stay here and be thankful. I did correct my previous post.

          I've tried to put myself inside the shoes of an illegal immigrant. I can see the fear in their eyes when I engage them. It's this fear that sets them up to questioning by the police where they are discovered. It's a sad thing. I sometimes want to grab them and hug them and tell them everything will be alright, especially the children, but that's just me. My fellow countrymen don't feel the same way.

          If I were president I'd definitely be a one term president. They would probably kick me out of the country. :)
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: I think you make one fundamental assumption, that is simply untrue, and at the root of it, is actually a type of racism. Your fundamental assumption, is that Mexico, and the Mexican people, can't build themselves a vibrant and sustainable economy. You assume Africa, and the African people, can't build themselves a great monument of civilization.

        I think people will be fine, if they work hard, grant one another individual freedoms, and help one another out in times of crisis. The idea that the world would be a better place if everyone just left places that don't have their act together, seems like one that can only serve to destabillize.

        You seem to think that the world would be "fair", if everyone was as miserable as people in the most crippling poverty... I disagree. I think it would be fair if there was a vibrant middle class everyone had a chance to participate in, and a carrot on the stick of getting wealthy if you invest well. I think if you are unwilling to work hard and learn the skills society needs of you, you don't deserve to participate in that vibrant middle class. I think it is fair to give each individual that choice.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: I would respectfully question your assertion that the US is the most ethnically diverse nation. The "great melting pot" is in really a bit of a myth. For example 12.9% of US residents were born elsewhere. In Australia 26% of residents were born elsewhere and its 20% for Canada.(Unless my assumption about the typo was erroneous and you did mean ethically diverse. In which case you are entirely correct as I know of no other country with such a broad spread of ethics)
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Pedro

        I respectfully point out that this is not really myth, like so many things you say. Since Australia's total population is 23 million so 26% is 4 million which is not nothing. But in the U.S. the number of immigrants is 38 million.

        I will agree with either spelling as being apt.

        I will take it that since you did not complain about the comment that the U.S. is the greatest country in the history of the world that you do not disagree with that part. (8^(l)
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: I merely point out that on a percentage of population basis there is nothing particularly diverse about the US compared to some other nations. You do much better than most of the EU however.
          Regarding the greatness of the US you cant argue with the fact that the western world has ridden on its back for the last hundred odd years. Possibly a burden you will be relieved of some time this century.
        • Sep 16 2012: @Pat Gilbert

          A melting pot is a melting pot because of percentages, not its total population size. China probablyhas more minorities and immigrants than the US in absolute numbers but it's not a melting pot because over 90% of its population are Chinese born Han Chinese. The US are a melting pot but not the only one, others are Canada, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia and India.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: I will also add... that... 98% of the US population was born elsewhere somewhere within the last 300 years... Also, that statistic is biased against us because we have so many second generation immigrants whose parents came to escape the war in Europe, and third generation immigrants whose parents came to escape the war in Europe before that.

        I think our population has risen 4 times since 1900, and that was from a hundred million, so in order of magnitude, we really are something special. Australia has enough land to start immigrating millions of farmers...

        Also, I think I often say we're the most diverse, like pat, but in reality, what I mean is "The US, Canada, and Australia, the nations of immigrants, share an extreme diversity, not seen elsewhere in the world". In all three cases, it's partially because of our violent history as colonies, are hands aren't clean or anything... but I think Americans often think of the 3 of us as "tied for most diverse", and we're the biggest.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: Regarding the millions of farmers, it may have escaped your notice but unfortunately Australia is also the dryest continent. Around 70% of Aus is classified as desert. It's like we have California on one side and Florida on the other but there's 20 Arizonas in between.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Well 38 million immigrants is 21% of all the immigrants in the world, number 2 is Russia at 6% and Germany at 5%, Australia is at 2%. Calif has 10 million immigrants which is 2.5 times your country.

        This gives a little perspective to the problem as Calif doesn't have a printing press they have at the federal level.

        As mentioned before the scum bag politicians have created the problem by giving away services ostensibly to buy voters.

        The greatness that I refer to is that the U.S. has raised the standard of living of the world more than any country in history.

        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: I do appreciate that immigration stats are very skewed in the US due to the border with Mexico. Probably not all that many Hispanics in Seattle. Regarding the link, I really think a per capita number is more relevant, we are a big country but sparsely populated as the big dry red bit in the middle doesn't attract many immigrants. Hell I live on the coast down south (that's the cold half down under) and we still get temps over 100 degrees anywhere from November to March.
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2012: Unlike America though... You can actually impose civil solutions to that problem.


        Get to work : p (as if I have any right to say that as an American in this decade)
        • thumb
          Sep 16 2012: I'm sure it will come to that eventually, it's just a matter of convincing the voters that the infrastructure is worth the investment. Another great plan down here is to cut a channel from the south coast into the interior. Vast areas of central Australia are below sea level, so they would flood creating an inland sea.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: Gotta go with Pat on this one. I have other concerns. First things first. The discussion has been that Mexicans come here and that is a valid assumption .... However, no boarder makes passage into Mexico as well. The differences in our laws and the laws of Mexico are night and day apart. Does Mexico have the infrastructure to support the influx such as water, medical, sewage treatment. How about the money ... It would be the Euro problems X 10.

      The reason we have visa and citizenship laws in place is so that there is some control which allows the cities to adjust for growth. Say you live in Happy. The Happy engineers have set up a sewage system based on projected annual growth, the water table will support the same amount of growth, and the town has all of the infrastructure planned out. So Happy sees these people who want to move into Happy and the apple cart has gone to hell. We needs more schools and more everything NOW. Where does the money come from. Happy has no jobs for the original people and now has many many more unemployeed.

      These are great dreams .... but that is what they are dreams. We have quota systems based on different nationalities that wish to come to America. That ensures fairness to all. The ilegals that come into the country are not planned for and cause problems in all sorts of areas.

      You hate Mexicans, blah, blah, is all hype. The state of Arizona spends billions in unplanned for needs that are directly associated with people who will not abide by the law. The administration want them here but is unwilling to pay the bills.

      We have laws for reasons. The feds and the state should work together to enforce the law of the land. Instead the feds get mad when the state enforces the law and sues Arizona for doing their job.

      There is no free lunch. Put away the love beads. Put on your big boy pants and join the real world.

      All the best. Bob.
  • Sep 27 2012: The point is not the immigration, but who is immigrating. I would not say "restrict" immigration but "filtering". In all countries there are good and bad people. If an immigrant who is a hard worker that will come to my country, and work hard, pay his taxes, be a good neighboor, and a good citizen. That individual is welcome. But the failure on good "filtering" of who comes in is what is taking nations to thing about "restriction".
  • Sep 22 2012: so wright how 3 of my last jobs were taken over by the illegal that i trained to be my helper then i was fired as soon as they knew enough to run it them selves for 1/2 the amount i was making. and burn it ?
    • Sep 27 2012: That was a failure of your boss, because if you were good enough to be chosen to train the newcomers. Then you are the type of employee that any enterprise should keep, no matter how good the new ones are. Management is not only a matter of money but of human chemistry, In my country there is a porverb that says: "If something is good you dont change it". Maybe your former boss never heard that proverb.
  • Sep 21 2012: people that ellect to move out of there corrupt country should be collected up and sent to an education center wen they learn to abide by our rules of safe conduct and how much they should make at a given job and not accept 10% of that position so as not to destabilize our system they can be awarded citizenship.
  • Sep 21 2012: hold up the change i desire is put it back to how it was. not open season on illegal immigration. reopen Ellis island. make them learn the rules and language. they are called ILLEGAL for a reason. that in it self is grounds for dismissal. but illegal doing illegal things = death in some countries.
    • Sep 22 2012: it sounds as though you have had a bad experience with illegal immigrants... Which is ofcourse very unfortunate.
      However I have some advice for you. It would, in my eyes, do you good not to write posts while you are burning with anger. Or perhaps you should write them but then refrain from hitting send untill you have calmed down and reread your own post.
      I say this because when I read your posts I cannot find any arguments as to why you are for or against. I can only find anger.
      And although I am interrested in your opinion I cannot see any foundation for your views (other than that the immigrants have an obligation to learn about the country they want to go to).
  • Sep 21 2012: my point it why do you want data proving something wen they should stay in there own country and stand up to there corrupt government instead of running away?
  • Sep 21 2012: well i only had 5 minutes to look lol and not all are in the papers as the papers are censored...
    • Sep 21 2012: It's easy to speak like that when you haven't suffered all the injustices of the third world. They don't run away; it's just matter of survival.

      With all due respect.
  • Sep 21 2012: else talking about Native Americans, is to understand why they are not in the U.S. Constitution?
  • Sep 21 2012: I could agree, but not now. I beleave it is fairer and more human to be citicen of the world, nevertheless you can not allow that until the world has more even or egalitarian conditions. If not, it would be unfair for the rich countries which would be invaded for low-income people, from the third world, looking for oportunities and a better life. Something like the emigration we can see today, just that in an unsustainable massive way.

    I understand rich countries have been unfair, many times, with poor countries; but it is also true that rich countries have a lot of hard work, sweat, effort, inteligence and even blood spilled, given by many generations whom have countribute to the society they are today.
  • Sep 20 2012: There are 2 seperate issues here.
    1) physical place in the world.
    2) legistlation/rights regarding that place.

    1) I think that everyone would support 1 (aka everyone is free to go to any place upon this world.. given that they do not invade someone's personal space).

    2) The real question however in my eyes is if and when 2 should apply.
    As example a few countries have very good health systems and or retirement plans. These systems have been build by long term investments by the inhabitants. As a logical result only people that have fully attributed to these systems should (imo) be allowed to fully utilize their use.
    Another (inverted) example is that (imo and generally speaking) one should not be able to escape a penalty for a crime commited in a previous country by moving to another.

    Unfortunately it is not possible to make distinctions within issue nr2 because you either are a citizen of one country or you are not. And therefor there are many problems regarding people who 'become citizen' of a different country later on in life (this is not the only reason for somewhat failing imigration ofcourse).
  • Sep 20 2012: look at the outcome how many kids under the age of 18 were killed by illegal aliens driving drunk with no papers of any kind? no license to passport no reg on the car stolen plates. AND THEY JUST WALK. killed a 13 year old girl in Florida and walked with 3 due's!!!! then hes free to go you know anyplace as he don't have an address. can we go to mexico with out documentation? with out papers ? oh. and they are checking all the non illegals like PEOPLE BORN HERE 6 and 7 year olds being strip searched at airports, but people with no ID at all can go where ever they please with no restrictions and no recourse to there actions.
  • thumb
    Sep 19 2012: Very interesting reading Ehis Odijie.

    Paul Samuelson.

    I'm posting a like to a pdf of his writing associated with your topic and the note attributed to him.


    Edward, if you haven't read this...... you should. John.
  • thumb
    Sep 19 2012: Are we talking by household or by country?