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:
  • 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.,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=70947f9cdc2ed06a&biw=1680&bih=834

    Edward, if you haven't read this...... you should. John.
  • thumb
    Sep 19 2012: Are we talking by household or by country?
  • thumb
    Sep 16 2012: @ John Smith below

    Nope that is conjecture. If you had bothered to look at my link or read my post you would have seen that the U.S. has 20% of the worlds immigrants the next closest one is Russia with 6%.

    Once again:
    • thumb
      Sep 17 2012: But if you just look at raw totals and don't correct for sample size the US is the wealthiest nation based on GDP and China is second. On a per capita basis (which is how you personally experience your life) the US is 14th and China is 88th.
      You could put all the immigrants in the whole world in China and they would still be a relatively homogenous society with only 14% immigrant population. That's about the same as Ireland which isn't exactly a hot bed of multi-culturalism.
      Using the raw data China and Australia have about the same number of immigrants but I bet they're easier to spot in Sydney than they are in Beijing.
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2012: I don't see it that way especially at the cost per immigrant.
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2012: I thought the US economy was built on immigration.
        • thumb
          Sep 20 2012: I can't answer for Pat, Peter, but what I got from his message was pointed towards the impact cost per immigrant. The cost to the nation to take in an immigrant. Immigration cost the hosting nation money until they get adjusted and start contributing revenue to the system. Can we afford new immigrants right now with so many of our own citizens out of work?

          They have to be educated, trained, berthed, feed and given medical care. Legal immigration is a costly business. illegal immigration costs are higher because you have to figure in the cost of police to track them down, the damage they cause from not being properly educated and adjusted to their new surroundings, they may have affiliations with criminal activity or become desperate and commit crime.

          In the Mitt Romney video that was recently released, he bold states that he would love to bring in loads of new immigrants, I'm sure, because it would have a wage lowering effect on labor in this country. Because he doesn't see the 47%, as he puts it in the video, he doesn't consider them. Because he doesn't consider them, he doesn't realize the impact it could have if they got angry all at once.

          Personally I think you guys have the same picture, just different picture frames.

          Am I correct here Pat?
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: Peter the US economy is built on metered immigration.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2012: I fully agree. I just thought that Pat's description of cost per immigrant only occurs if you're getting the wrong immigrants. Well structured immigration should bring in people that are a benefit to what ever you are trying to achieve. With the exception of refugees.
    • Sep 17 2012: "Nope that is conjecture. If you had bothered to look at my link or read my post you would have seen that the U.S. has 20% of the worlds immigrants the next closest one is Russia with 6%."

      Nation master's statistics are very bad, but let's just assume they're correct in this instance you have to look at the percentage of the host country's population (like Peter Lindsay is trying to explain to you), then Australia and Canada beat the US according to nationmaster, and most importantly the word "melting pot" refers to cultural diversity, that means that even if 95% of Norway's population consisted of Swedish immigrants Norway still wouldn't be a melting pot because the immigrants are from the same culture, on the other India is a melting pot because of its wildly varying cultures, even though all of those cultures have been in the country for centuries.
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2012: An extremely small percentage of the U.S. population is native in other words 99.99 % of the U.S. population is native if you want to compare that to India.
        • Sep 17 2012: Being "native" (no matter what your cut off point for "native" happens to be) has nothing to do with it. It's about current diversity: the current United States is very diverse but may not be the most diverse country in the world, that's all.
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2012: Okey Dokey
  • Sep 16 2012: A degree of control will always exist - but if restrictions are to exist then it should not be purely based on nationality criteria.
  • Sep 16 2012: Absolutely not. The wrong people could take over the government and make things unfair for the people who were there before them, and for the nation as a whole. Lazy and incompetent people would likely become more commonplace under such a liberal society.
    • thumb
      Sep 20 2012: And that's different from now in what way other than scale?
  • Sep 16 2012: In my viewpoint, the answer is definitely no. Unrestricted immigration would lead to severe consequences for both developing and developed countries. Let's imagine the scenario when throngs of people move to some nations which are called "promising lands". How can the governments control the autonomy? How can they keep their traditional culture?
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: I see teachers with 200 pupil classes, 3/4 which don't speak any English. Then we would have to hire more teachers in declining economy. The numbers just don't work.
  • Sep 16 2012: To some extent, I want to support unrestricted immigration, but...
    without thorough censorship, unrestricted immgration can be a threat to the people in your country.
    You don't want drug dealers, fugitives, and Mafia to come to your country and settle down, do you?

    For safety issues, unrestriced immigration should be done by government's discretion.
    • thumb
      Sep 20 2012: If only it were all about safety, Elizabeth, I would completely agree with you. Your point is, however, a valid one.
    • Sep 23 2012: i also like you comment Elizabth, but by restricting the border is just keeping out the nice hard working people that we want because the Mafia and drug dealers allready come and go as they please
  • thumb
    Sep 16 2012: i don't like moving .i just want to stay in china ,do what i can ,owe what i can have!moving can make a mess!
  • Dan F

    • 0
    Sep 16 2012: To attain this objective would requires considerable accord and civility between nations. Too often hostility better describes these relations and it can extend to individuals because they are often envoys of their extraction.

    Aside from that fact, does not a sovereign nation have a right to restrict immigration for a host of sound reasons?

    Perhaps we would all be better off if more nation states would be kinder and gentler to their countrymen so there would be less desire for them to escape to a better environment.

    I don't agree with your proclamation that nations are fictional.
  • Sep 15 2012: No. And if you can't understand my answer there is no reason to explain. And the explanation by the questioner is so full of holes you could drive a truck through them.
  • Sep 15 2012: I am against free immigration because of the laws of physics.

    If the USA completely opened its borders it would be flooded with a mass of humans. The mass of all these people leaving where they are and converging in one country could slightly shift the center of gravity of the planet. Even a slight shift could have massive consequences. We would experience earthquakes, the length of the day could become unstable, and there would certainly be climate changes.

    This may seem like a joke, but when you consider the numbers involved, it is possible. Unintended consequences always happen.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2012: Thanks Barry

      I think you introduced a novel concern which is wholly legitimate. I do not think it is desirable, or even possible, to have free immigration overnight. It is something we have to work toward.
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2012: I know what your saying Barry, It's be like all the ice melting in Antarctica all of a sudden, not just relating to ocean levels rising but all that ice weight going away would set off earthquakes as the continent rises and readjusts to the lack of weight.

      Don't forget all that body heat in one place, CO2, etc.
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2012: In the modern world free and unrestricted movement within one's country is no longer an option for most. Trying to expand that tot he global community could never happen, mostly for security reasons. Add in the fear and anxiety related to "foreigners" coming into your local community and just wait for the protests to begin.
  • Sep 15 2012: Its an unrealistic and way far off, perhaps not possible at all. You see European union though its a virtual conglomerate of some European nations boundaries still exist between those nations, there would be a internal resistance whenever there is financial trouble within one of those nations and that union is verge on the collapse.
    To boundary less world first GDP of all nations needs to be more or less equal which is not possible because all conditions leading to GDP of a country are not same at different geographical
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2012: European Union has been a great success so far. The end goal of the EU project is to bring about peace and stop competition between nations - the kind that led to two world wars. The two world wars were, at its core, power struggle between mostly Germany and Britain, the EU project has successfully made such competitions irrelevant due to the common platform.

      We can debate if the right economic means were employed to achieve this goal but i think you can agree that it has been a great success.
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2012: No.... not at this time.
  • Sep 14 2012: No. Countries are real. To some degree we can engineer our quality of life in our own country. I want to have a reasonable income. I want to hve a citizenship of value. If we are to have assistance programs for the other (not a bad idea) Why not choose one that has more bang for the buck? (10 or 100) times or whatever. Reasonable foreign aid, microloans, etc. are so much more helpful in poor countries than in expensive countries. In America we are having serious financial problems at the local,state, and national level after modest globalization and immigration. The old steal it from the Indians attitude doesn't work anymore, and I am not talking about people from the Indian subcontinent.
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2012: I agree nation states are human constructs and arbitrary.
    But they are not fiction.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: How are other countries like the UK dealing with immigration policy? Most problems concerning illegal immigration start from the countries nearest the borders of a free country . Who's trying to get into the UK and for what reasons? I think we have covered the United States enough. We are not the only nation in the world.
    • thumb
      Sep 14 2012: UK and West Europe - Mainly Africans. Mainly Economic. I guess.

      Australia gets Afgani minorities, Iraqis and Tamils (from Sri Lanka) from conflict zones arriving by boat from Indonesia..

      We also get a lot of overstayers from Asia, and some from the UK who like the sun.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: What is the value of the people you get? Can they afford the trip? How do they get there? Have you spoken to any of them? How do they feel about all the chaos going on in their countries?

        We loaded up with Vietnamese refugees after 1975. They are a very energetic and imaginative people, smart, hard workers. I see many Afghan people (at a distance) they don't mingle well with others here. People from India all over the place. They own all the convince stores in America. :)

        The Arabs own all the hotels in Georgia and most of the good land. They own all the islands below Florida (and all the Hotels). :)

        In Atlanta Georgia, the Chinese own whole sections of the city. They are very focused on creating local farms, hydroponics, etc. Very enterprising people.

        Even the Mexicans are hard working, energetic, honest, and enterprising. They just don't know how to drive cars. :)

        American really is a melting pot. Everybody marries into everybody family here. You need to join my forum on my website dude.
  • Sep 13 2012: " YES the Nation state is a fiction but that is not what we are discussing here"
    Laws are fiction. Culture is fiction. Civilization is fiction. Does this mean that you copulate on the street? Or that you use violence to settle your personal conflicts? Or that you use books as toiletpaper (you might, but I really hope you do not). I really am not a fan of the intellectual arrogance with which the OP dissmisses one of the most important and in many cases benefical concepts of modern civilization as "fictional".

    In either case, I do not support the principle supported by some that free immigration between nations is supposedly some sort of inalienable right. It is not. Claiming that it is violates the social contract. People who live in a given community should also have the right to exclude people from that community if they so chose, because the people who are being excluded have not supported the community in the form of taxes, they also are not percieved to share any cultural characteristcs with the community by it's members.

    If people do not want immigrants with certain cultural values or immigrants without certain qualifications to recieve the benefits of entering their country, then no-one has the right to tell the citizens of that country that it is wrong for them to limit immigration.

    Do I support it as a government policy? Absolutely not. You cannot expect to take people from one of the most backward, poor and illiterate parts of the world and expect them to integrate into Western countries seamlessly. I really do not see why it should be upheld as desirable.

    Some form of restrictions on immigration are very necessary and inescapable, especially if you are living in a welfare state. Otherwise you will risk ending up in a situation where destitute immigrants come to the state to live as they did back home, just without working.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: Yes. If it were practiced, the number of like minded people would accumulate faster in groups that could have the greatest power to influence change in the areas they migrated from.

    A large accumulation in the population of the United States from immigrating people would provide us with the numbers necessary to focus on the problems of why they immigrated in the first place.

    If half he population of Mexico immigrated to the United States, it would justify us taking over Mexico and making it a part of the United States.

    North Korea would cease to be a county because the entire population would move to China, India, and South Korea. We could just move in, defeat the feeble forces left there and create a new democratic country. Everybody could move back.

    We could apply this technique to every border country surrounding the United States (in our hemisphere), and eventually gain control of the entire Hemisphere. There would be no war in Syria because everyone would be living in Turkey. It would then, be very easy, to target the bogus Syrian forces and end the hostilities.

    Excellent question.
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: Of course there wouldn't be such a thing as restricted/unrestricted immigration at all if the border of a country is space surrounding Earth. But that won't happen for a while.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: They didn't think the Soviet Union would fall when it did. No one anticipated the uprising in the Middle East. The internet and cell phone is making things happen much faster today.

      Don't give up yet. :)
      • Sep 14 2012: hi John

        no one knows when exactly EU will fall apart.
        The internet and cell phone is making things happen much faster today.

        waiting to see it!

        Everything has its end
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: You have a hard time staying on the page with everyone else, I notice. We were taking about globalization, and the pace of it's integration on this planet. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

          Or, were you threatening someone?
      • Sep 14 2012: I had no intention to threaten any one...

        I was responding to you: "They didn't think the Soviet Union would fall when it did."

        Saying that one day EU will fall apart, but no one knows when.

        I am just waiting to see it, because I believe that if everything has a start it has an end too.

        Thank you
  • thumb
    Sep 13 2012: The most powerful nation in history in terms of economic and military strength is (was) the United States of America. One of the key contributors to the early growth of the U.S.A. was the immigration policy enforced during the first 200 or so years of her 236 year history. That immigration policy was a tightly controlled, rigidly enforced system of screening each and every applicant. Her borders were protected by a combination of natural barriers and manned security stystems as required to minimize illegal immigration. As that system fell into disrepair in the last 35 or so years illegal immigration increased. Coincidentally, the steep decline of American strength began shortly thereafter. Cause and effect? Probably. An unrestricted immigration policy is an efficient means to weaken an established nation and to keep a developing nation from thriving.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: You are not blaming the decline of American economic strength on immigration - Are you?

      You must have read your American history upside down because, save the Orients, your country had free immigration policy from its inception until about 1915. And immigration is the very cause of your economic and military strength - people from Europe escaping tyranny and farming all flocked to the United State during different wave of mass immigration. Theodore Roosevelt – Dutch descendant, JFK – Irish. America is the very example of the merit of free immigration, at its best.

      Read your own history - my friend
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: By "free immigration" do you mean free of ethnic quotas? After ethnic quotas on immigration were removed in 1965 the number of actual (first-generation) immigrants living in the United States eventually quadrupled from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007. In 2008 the US economy melted-down. Cause and effect? Perhaps secondary or tertiary.
        America is certainly a nation of immigrants. Those immigrants came through Ellis Island and San Francisco and complied to all immigration laws, including ethnic quotas. They came seeking a chance to work diligently for a better life with freedom of self-determination. What exactly do you mean by "free immigration"?
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: Edward - do you really think illegal immigrants contributed to the economic crisis?. As a matter of economic analysis America gains from illegal immigration, as long as they remain illegal - YES. They work below minimum wage, and are not subjected to occupation and health codes . They work below the standard of an average America - and they pay taxes. They are the once keeping marginal firms afloat and you have the ignorance to accord the crisis to them. They contribute more to the economy more than an average American does- this is a statement of fact - not debatable, because they do not receive welfare and they pay for it.

          That is the face. Not except you are on a strict diet of right wing propaganda, without analyzing the information you eat up.

          To turn to your second point: the ethnic quotas, more appropriately called the race quota, has nothing to do with immigration - it was a racist law to prevent nonwhite from coming into America.

          As a matter of history there was no immigration control into the USA until 1915. The ethnic quotas you talked about was instituted in 1924. So , with all due respect ,you lied when you said USA had stiff immigration laws in the "first 200 or so years of her 236 year history". How can you be that ignorant of your own history?

          By free immigration i mean free movement of people. Now ask me another question . . .
      • Sep 13 2012: "As a matter of economic analysis America gains from illegal immigration, as long as they remain illegal - YES. They work below minimum wage, and are not subjected to occupation and health codes . They work below the standard of an average America - and they pay taxes."

        If talking about exports, yes. But the economy inside gets weakened, as decreasing loans (of legal or illegal worker does not matter) kill the states economy quickly.

        Also, every person inside a state raises costs, and when illegal workers get paid much less, they might be a benefit for the company, but not for the state, who has to maintain the infrastructure. These costs must be substracted from the earnings of export.

        Also, illegal immigrants neither do always work, nor that they spend all their money inside the state they migrated to. Most of their income goes outside a country, to support family and friends. In total, illegal migration is no win, that is why it is illegal migration. If there was a win, there was no need to make migration illegal under certain circumstances.

        The crisis is insofar supported by illegal workers, as the toleration of those speeds up the negative effects of decreasing loans. It might work in Village A, where Farmer Joe has his farm run by illegal workers and gains tax wins for the Village. But the state this Village is located at loses, because there is a money drain, higher costs for the unemployed, less sales tax and so on. And if that happens in every State, a Nation goes down.

        And that is why unrestricted whatever does not work. Because that also means unrestricted costs.

        From the ethical side, migration should not be restricted. But it has to, otherwise that what was attractive to migrate into gets lost. If all people on a boat move to one side, it sinks. Its better to make both sides comfortable enough, that both sides migrate in equal sum
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: "when illegal workers get paid much less, they might be a benefit for the company, but not for the state."

          What’s the difference? Say, they help keep 100 companies open - the companies’ pay taxes to the state and such taxes are used to supply and maintain infrastructure, so are contributing to the state - directly. If they leave, marginal firms will disappear (a fact) because most cannot afford to pay minimum wage = state loses more taxes. This is just the fact.

          Also, they have no access to ‘depletable’ social services – so it’s a win situation for the country at large. Put them up against idle Americans you'd understand . .

          "Also, illegal immigrants neither do always work, nor that they spend all their money inside the state they migrated to. Most of their income goes outside a country"

          The fraction of local savings is what goes out. This is very easy to calculate - an average worker spends his income on basic good, cloth, housing and food - the balance goes into savings. The immigrant sends his surplus outside. There is no difference in principle.

          Your point on that "The crisis is insofar supported by illegal workers" does not deserve my attention. See how silly an argument could be - you refuse to accept that they are contributing to the economy in the slightest but settled that they contributed to the crisis.
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: RE: "Now, ask me another question. . . "Thank you for permitting me another question. Here it is:Why does this list of significant dates in US Immigration law falsify your assertion that immigration in America was unrestricted until 1924?Naturalization Act of 1790: Stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States"1875: Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act: Prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.1891: The Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the U.S.1892: On January 2, a new Federal US immigration station opened on Ellis Island in New York Harbor.1903: This Act restated the 1891 provisions concerning land borders and called for rules covering entry as well as inspection of aliens crossing the Mexican border.1917 - 1924: A series of laws were enacted to further limit the number of new immigrants. These laws established the quota system and imposed passport requirements. Please respond to this specific information and spare me your assessment of my knowledge base. Thank you!
        • thumb
          Sep 13 2012: I said "save the Orients".

          But read your extract 1790: Stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States". Meaning anyone can be a citizen provided they are not slaves . . That is a free immigration policy . . read the full document please.

          Then you have "The Chinese Exclusion Act" that's what i meant by the Orient. That was an issue of race as opposed to immigration control.

          Modern border passport requirements started in the first world war . . 1915 is when the first debate on immigration was introduced in congress - as a policy to protect America workers as opposed to a racist policy to avoid Orients . . Don't you get?
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: RE: "I said "save the Orients"."
        You consider the stipulation "a free white person" to be an indicator of a free immigration policy? A simple reading of that clause clearly excludes Hispanics, Asians, Africans, all non-whites. How on Earth do you consider that free immigration sir?
      • Sep 13 2012: " If they leave, marginal firms will disappear (a fact) because most cannot afford to pay minimum wage = state loses more taxes. This is just the fact."

        Yes, but you forget here that a state has multiple incomes. Think about that these minimum taxes is one, but that does not outweigh all the money "lost" from unemployed people and money that goes outside the country, also these low-income workers (if legal or illegal does not matter) do consume almost only what is necessary for live, but not in anything luxury.

        "Also, they have no access to ‘depletable’ social services – so it’s a win situation for the country at large. Put them up against idle Americans you'd understand . . "

        It is not a win situation, as a minimum loan always means minimum tax income from that worker. Assumed the work would be legal, the paid tax would be probably higher. That would mean, there is more money for social services.

        Illegal work that pays taxes is no win, because the money in the pot is way less than it could be. Also, the social cost do not sink, like the loans do. These cost have to be managed, and by these little tax payments from illegal work it will not work. And that affects at most the legal workers, who suffer from worse social services. A state has costs, ok, illegal work might bring a cent here, or there, but what helps it in the end when you have billions of cost?

        " The immigrant sends his surplus outside. There is no difference in principle. "
        It is new to me that the Banks located on southpole pay taxes for the northpole? Money that is not in the country is lost and interests are created elsewhere. It is also not in the pocket of national salesman anymore.

        "you refuse to accept that they are contributing to the economy in the slightest but settled that they contributed to the crisis. "
        They do not contribute, they take part. Contribution would mean, they add something that is not there. But there is enough workers.
    • Sep 13 2012: Hi Edward

      "The most powerful nation in history in terms of economic and military strength is (was) the United States of America"

      Where millions of people are unable to meet their basic needs...
      Where millions of people can't see a doctor during their lifetime...
      where millions of children live in poverty...

      where government spend tax money on military means to create enemies leaving their own children in poverty ... you call this power?

      when the young generation can't afford to get college, you call this economical strength?

      I don't think that many would agree that it is power.

      by the way, China is taking over, think again about the " terms of economic and military strength is"
      better to put "is" between brackets:

      The most powerful nation in history in terms of economic and military strength (is) was the United States of America...
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: Your diatribe is not germane to this debate sir. You can propose that America is no longer the preeminent nation on Earth, but it cannot be denied that she ONCE WAS. My point-consistent with the topic- is the USA became the greatest nation on Earth by carefully regulating immigration, certainly not by free immigration/open borders. What say ye on that topic Edwin? Thank you!
      • thumb
        Sep 13 2012: From what I read, Spain is doing much worse than the United States. The words you are speaking will very shortly be speaking of conditions in your own country. Edwin.

        China is in decline since the US is buying less Chinese products. We are the biggest market on the planet. But we are getting a little particular about what we buy and where it comes from. Things could turn around real fast in today's market. Either way, Spain is in a hot spot.

        They buy most of their electricity from other countries.
        They should build more generating plants.
        • Sep 14 2012: I am with you that Spain is doing worse... this is not a news, (I say: "If Spanish National football team was running this country we would be winners three times in row"). many young Spaniards leave Spain in hope finding something different some where else.

          now My point here is this:

          If we (as white people) can go somewhere else and look for a job or just live in another country, why can't a dark skinned person do that?

          Why I should have to work, pay taxes, that a policeman get paid by us and go out to run after young Africans who put their lives in risk, (To be or not to be), coming to Europe by a small toy boat... Those Africans have as much rights as we have to meet their basic needs, Water- Shelter - Food...

          Why we can be legal immigrants and call them illegal immigrants; Who gave us this right?
          Who is illegal anyway? when we all are registered in the country we born, we all have numbers tattooed on our forehead... we all are codes.

          We dug out Africa, India, South America and filled in EU, yet we have here more than we need...but we still want to have, because we choose to ignore the difference between NEED and WANT

          you see, If we could do this to Africa, India, South America then we have to accept the fact and face to the bitten truth and give them back what our grandparents took from them.
          Maybe then, they wouldn't risk their lives to come over here and be illegal immigrant, but we would be in their own country... and I believe they would treat as differently as they did then, because there were rich, gold and diamond were everywhere, they didn't terrorise. colonised, enslaved any country for this.

          Belgium kept Congo under his rule till late 90s... they went there not for Congo, but for diamond. now when a Congolese walks in the streets of Belgium, they all think that this little poor African is terrorist. they do this first to be avoided to be reminded.

          you see, We take an innocent stranger and treat as terrorist instead of tourist
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2012: If what you say it true, than the smart thing for you to do is move to China, get a job in one of their factories and start learning to speak Chinese. Why waste time?
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: "The most powerful nation in history in terms of economic and military strength is (was) the United States of America." Edward, this was only since the end of WWII. prior to WWI, the real driving force in economics was China. The Military is a separate question.
      • thumb
        Sep 14 2012: Agreed. My point is we (USA) once enjoyed being king-of-the-hill.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: We still enjoy it. :)
          We just don't have the room for everybody to pile up here.

          I think everyone in the Middle east, Europe and Asia, who want to immigrate should move to Spain. There is plenty of room there.

          If you don't live in Mexico, the United States is a long way off.
      • Sep 14 2012: your generation does think that America is Great...

        sorry to say that I haven't met any young American who think as you do... I think it is because your thinking is a bit old fashioned for them. so they started to accept the fact that we all are equal...

        about Being at the top...
        It can be lonely at the top - Think again when you are at the top again.
        being long time at the top maybe this is one of the reasons that many Americans die in loneliness.

        about people moving to Spain:
        Agricultural Revolution and Development of Civilization started in Southern Europe.
        the oldest cities are in South Europe, these people learned how live together in small cities
        That is why Southern people are more human, civilised and hospitable compared to barbarians of The Frozen North.

        people from the Frozen North come to South to learn HOW to live and enjoy something called LIFE, because all they could learn in the Frozen North is How to be materialist and individualist... The concept of SHARING is beyond their comprehension.

        sir, I am Armenian (non European) and a southern person, I live half of my live in Europe, I lived in the Frozen North for many years and then I moved to South Europe. why? for PEOPLE
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: What you are doing is called stalking. It is against the rules on TED, I believe

          I live at 984 Mill Creek Ave. Canton, Georgia, zip code 300115. Stop by sometime or I'm going to start flagging your comments and let TED decide the issue.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Sep 13 2012: In the long run, I support open borders. In the short term, I do not. But I say this from the United States,and I want Americans to understand that there is a WRITTEN constitution over which they should have control, but that control has been wrested from them by a Supreme Court, a Congress, and presidents who prefer British Common Law (the unwritten constitution) over a constitutional government.

    When Americans understand how much they do not know, and they begin educating themselves, they will make more informed choices, and will be able to enact them. Until they know this, immigration is a threat because it does nothing more than create another political voting block that can be exploited at my expense.

    When we are again "all in this together", we can determine how many resources we have and how many people that can support, making decisions based on this for as long as international borders remain.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2012: That's a good way to sidestep the issue Ted lover. :)
      When were we ever "all in this together"?
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Sep 14 2012: We were "all in this together" until 1819, when the coup d'etat overthrew our constitutional government. Not side-stepping. Just explaining the why of my view.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: In 1819 it became official that the introduction of slaves into the united states was ended. That is when the official end of slavery took place in this country. Slave trade within the United States, due to slaves giving birth continued however, in part to States like South Caroline and many other Southern States. The real ending of slavery did not occur until after the Civil War.

          Is this the coup d`etat you are referring to?
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Sep 14 2012: No. I was referring to the time when the Supreme Court ignored the constitution, gave itself the power to overthrow the constitutional republic as our form of government. It replaced our government with British Common Law. (McCulloch v. Maryland)

        It said that the 10th amendment does not mean what it says (that government has no power unless granted it by the constitution); but rather it means that government shall have EVERY power unless specifically denied it by the constitution - and even then it can ASSUME unconstitutional powers using (unconstitutional) "implied" powers as well as the necessary powers clause - but something doesn't have to be necessary for congress to use that clause. It said that the constitution is not a contract, but rather - a guideline, and that the Bill of Rights are merely suggestions. It went on to say that the people should never be consulted in matters of such small importance.

        It went further. In overturning the constitutional republic, it set up a "system of checks and balances" with the court as the final authority and with the power to establish laws by employing "judicial precedents" - in violation of the constitution. It said that the "conditional" ratifications of the constitution by VA, MA, NY, NH, RI, and CT were not conditional (you can read them yourself at the Avalon Project). It threw out state sovereignty. (Remember, the constitution was really the governing doctrine of a treaty organization - not a government)

        It rejected all of the anti-Federalist papers that successfully blocked ratification of the constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added. You don't even hear about them today.

        It authorized the establishment of a national bank - even though its establishment was not essential or necessary to meet its purposes. It is the reason why America is so broken today. It marks the ay that your government was opened up for sale to the highest bidder, and it was taken out of your hands.
        • thumb
          Sep 14 2012: Maryland ratified and adopted the Constitution of the United States of America. The purpose of the Constitution was to formulate a module of national interests, in dispute of the rights of the states to rule themselves, which runs counter to the idea of a Federal, national, institution.

          They had every right and history bears the Government out on this issue. We have become a more powerful nation than we would have if States ran their own separate affairs and made their own laws that might clash with the majority of the notions of the people in a centralist fashion.

          It's funny that the idea may never had come up if Maryland had not tried to impose a tax on the banks issuance of notes.

          America is not broken. If people paid attention to the law and come together under one flag and quite all this backward drifting to archaic thought, we would be more uniform in our application of law and mature in our cooperative efforts between the States. It's time to move on. In fact, that time has come and gone two hundred year ago.