All About Immigration

[Republic of Coldwater]

Immigration has been a hot topic recently, with Barack Obama signing executive orders to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in the US and the debate that ensued, alongside vehement anti-immigrant rhetoric in Europe. Ever since the lower costs of travel and an increasingly globalized economy, immigration has skyrocketed, especially in Western nations, and that has sparked many passionate debates for and against this new trend of the movement of people.

So NSG, what is your stance on immigration? Should we be deporting immigrants, letting more in or closing off immigration alltogether? Or are you a mix of many stances?

For the US, I oppose the executive actions done by Obama, as it is simply unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. I support giving amnesty for those who are contributing to the economy, such as those who operate in working class jobs, but not those who are leeching off welfare and the resources of society and not finding a job, as they are a strain on society. America is a land of immigrants, but immigrants who are willing to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their families, not to leech off society and not to work.

For further immigration, I support incentivizing high-wage workers to fill up the lack of jobs in high-wage jobs if they choose to stay in the US and continue to work for US Companies, which ultimately benefits the US, but I support strict controls on low-wage workers that seek to undermine the wages of working class legal immigrants and working class American Citizens, and I would oppose immigration from people who seek to leech off society's resources, unless they are from disaster zones who are in desperate need for humanitarian aid, or have aided the United States, in which they should have priority for naturalization.

[Randozies]

In general theory, I greatly approve of the creation of chaos and disorder through unchecked immigration. Being born in Berkeley, my opinions on politics are always skewed.

But I do see where you're coming from in some places. Controlling low-skill labor immigrants is important. Leeching health benefits is also very, very bad to a society.

On the other hand/hoof/claw, working with these laborers can boost a county's productivity and population, if done right. Also, as a side note, please explain to me why Barack Osama's act is illegal. I truly don't understand these ideas.

[Republic of Coldwater]

In general theory, I greatly approve of the creation of chaos and disorder through unchecked immigration. Being born in Berkeley, my opinions on politics are always skewed.

But I do see where you're coming from in some places. Controlling low-skill labor immigrants is important. Leeching health benefits is also very, very bad to a society.

On the other hand/hoof/claw, working with these laborers can boost a county's productivity and population, if done right. Also, as a side note, please explain to me why Barack Osama's act is illegal. I truly don't understand these ideas.

Barack Osama

Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the executive branch the power to pass laws, indeed that power is vested in the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government.

[Divitaen]

Immigration has been a hot topic recently, with Barack Obama signing executive orders to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in the US and the debate that ensued, alongside vehement anti-immigrant rhetoric in Europe. Ever since the lower costs of travel and an increasingly globalized economy, immigration has skyrocketed, especially in Western nations, and that has sparked many passionate debates for and against this new trend of the movement of people.

So NSG, what is your stance on immigration? Should we be deporting immigrants, letting more in or closing off immigration alltogether? Or are you a mix of many stances?

For the US, I oppose the executive actions done by Obama, as it is simply unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. I support giving amnesty for those who are contributing to the economy, such as those who operate in working class jobs, but not those who are leeching off welfare and the resources of society and not finding a job, as they are a strain on society. America is a land of immigrants, but immigrants who are willing to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their families, not to leech off society and not to work.

For further immigration, I support incentivizing high-wage workers to fill up the lack of jobs in high-wage jobs if they choose to stay in the US and continue to work for US Companies, which ultimately benefits the US, but I support strict controls on low-wage workers that seek to undermine the wages of working class legal immigrants and working class American Citizens, and I would oppose immigration from people who seek to leech off society's resources, unless they are from disaster zones who are in desperate need for humanitarian aid, or have aided the United States, in which they should have priority for naturalization.

Immigration is great and we are slowly moving to a multicultural, multiracial society, a trend aided by globalisation and immigration. I think economic migration is a good trend. There is a general consensus amongst economists that unrestricted migration promotes specialisation of labour and improves fiscal surpluses while stimulating economic consumption. Apart from the economics of it, immigrants aid the nation through their hard work and talents, plus the immigrant experience and discourse leads to things like cultural hybridity and the third space of enunciation, which help to break down barriers of cultural imperialism and exclusivity. I think Obama's executive order was a great thing. The GOP refused to pass even watered-down immigration reform bills that would have provided a limited path to citizenship while imposing stringent border controls and invasive employee background checks. Deportation is a clear violation of human rights and an inhumane violation of civil liberties, all in an attempt to get people who only want a better future for their children, have lived here for many years and wish to be re-united with their families or improve their livelihoods, out of the country.

[Harpers Ferry]

In general theory, I greatly approve of the creation of chaos and disorder through unchecked immigration. Being born in Berkeley, my opinions on politics are always skewed.

But I do see where you're coming from in some places. Controlling low-skill labor immigrants is important. Leeching health benefits is also very, very bad to a society.

On the other hand/hoof/claw, working with these laborers can boost a county's productivity and population, if done right. Also, as a side note, please explain to me why Barack Osama's act is illegal. I truly don't understand these ideas.

Barack Osama

Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the executive branch the power to pass laws, indeed that power is vested in the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government.

But they can be struck down by courts, so I fail to see the issue. If it is truly that reprehensible than it will be overturned in judicial review.

[Divitaen]

In general theory, I greatly approve of the creation of chaos and disorder through unchecked immigration. Being born in Berkeley, my opinions on politics are always skewed.

But I do see where you're coming from in some places. Controlling low-skill labor immigrants is important. Leeching health benefits is also very, very bad to a society.

On the other hand/hoof/claw, working with these laborers can boost a county's productivity and population, if done right. Also, as a side note, please explain to me why Barack Osama's act is illegal. I truly don't understand these ideas.

Barack Osama

Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant the executive branch the power to pass laws, indeed that power is vested in the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government.

SCOTUS has ruled executive orders as within the executive branch's constitutional powers, as long as he does not directly rearrange department funding and what not.

[Martean]

As an European, I feel sad about the anti-inmigrant rethoric that has been imposed in recent years and that it has made rational debates almost impossible.

Immigration is a very positive thing, in my country the rate of children per woman between 15-45 years is 1,09, clearly under the 2,1 needed to at least, estabilize the population. This means we will need MILLIONS of immigrants in the next few decades to maintain the welfare state we currently have.
It is also a matter of justice, rich countries have been benefiting from poorer countries throughout history, and now closing our frontiers for them it's just immoral.
And finnally, it is better to accept immigration as inevitable, rather than wasting energy, money and resources trying to do something impossible: fighting aganist nature.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

It might benefit a nation of 100 million inhabitants that is in no danger of ethnic or cultural extinction, but to a nation of 2-3 million, mass immigration is equivalent to destruction as a distinct ethnic and cultural group. So as long as I live where I do now, I will vehemently oppose any form of uncontrolled immigration. In our national history, it already happened once as part of a planned destruction of our people, and we're still dealing with the consequences of being very nearly reduced to a minority within our own country today.

[Grave_n_idle]

For the US, I oppose the executive actions done by Obama, as it is simply unconstitutional...

Your belief is inconsistent with reality. Obama's actions were no more unconstitutional than the almost identical actions taken by two of his Republican predecessors over the last few decades.

On the main topic: Immigration is a good thing, and - if anything - it's too hard to legal immigrants to get into 'first world' nations. There probably is a point at which immigration, in and of itself, becomes a 'bad thing'... for example, a mass influx of people into Hong Kong might create real population problems... but somewhere like the US has plenty of space.

[The Blaatschapen]

Governments have always tried to stop mass immigration into their countries.

The trick is to make the rest of the world a better place. People would stop moving en masse to your country if their own country was well off as well. Don't get me wrong, individuals would still move around, but the mass migration is only because their former place is crappier than their destination. Even if they end up in the lower class of their new society.

[Ripoll]

Immigration has been a hot topic recently, with Barack Obama signing executive orders to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in the US and the debate that ensued, alongside vehement anti-immigrant rhetoric in Europe. Ever since the lower costs of travel and an increasingly globalized economy, immigration has skyrocketed, especially in Western nations, and that has sparked many passionate debates for and against this new trend of the movement of people.

So NSG, what is your stance on immigration? Should we be deporting immigrants, letting more in or closing off immigration alltogether? Or are you a mix of many stances?

For the US, I oppose the executive actions done by Obama, as it is simply unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. I support giving amnesty for those who are contributing to the economy, such as those who operate in working class jobs, but not those who are leeching off welfare and the resources of society and not finding a job, as they are a strain on society. America is a land of immigrants, but immigrants who are willing to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their families, not to leech off society and not to work.

For further immigration, I support incentivizing high-wage workers to fill up the lack of jobs in high-wage jobs if they choose to stay in the US and continue to work for US Companies, which ultimately benefits the US, but I support strict controls on low-wage workers that seek to undermine the wages of working class legal immigrants and working class American Citizens, and I would oppose immigration from people who seek to leech off society's resources, unless they are from disaster zones who are in desperate need for humanitarian aid, or have aided the United States, in which they should have priority for naturalization.

To criticize the administration at all for this is aboslutely ridiculous. It's simply just not feasible to round up and deport every single illegal that resides within the US! This isn't amnesty, it's temporary deferment. Every president from both sides of the aisle since this became a hot button issue has done the same. It's all about being smart with spending and not attempting to do the impossible. Border control is at the highest point it's ever been regardless of who you agree with, illegal immigrants do pay taxes contrary to popular belief, and deportations of illegal immigrants who have a violent criminal record is up at all time highs.

We need to stop deporting doctors, lawyers, and business owners, and start deploying federal criminals. Hello! The vast majority of these illegals have resided in the US in the past 5 years, this is their home. Not some scary foreign place where drug lords run rampant and beheadings aren't rare. The jobs they take up are the jobs American's don't want to do. As for children who practically grew up here, many of them are high skilled workers who employ other Americans in their practices. Frankly immigrants are the majority of our productive citizens when it comes to bio-tech sciences that the US is leading in solely because it is a magnet for hard working intelligent folk everywhere.

[Ripoll]

It might benefit a nation of 100 million inhabitants that is in no danger of ethnic or cultural extinction, but to a nation of 2-3 million, mass immigration is equivalent to destruction as a distinct ethnic and cultural group. So as long as I live where I do now, I will vehemently oppose any form of uncontrolled immigration. In our national history, it already happened once as part of a planned destruction of our people, and we're still dealing with the consequences of being very nearly reduced to a minority within our own country today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA

[Shilya]

Immigration is a mixed bag, a "too much of a good thing" deal. A moderate amount of immigrants can stimulate your economy and provide you with some cultural benefits on top of that. Nothing wrong with that.

But too much of it, and your labour market is oversaturated, your infrastructure insufficient and your country dividing between the regular residents and the immigrants, with the latter forming their own sub-society. It seems the US is on the way there.

What to do there? There's two ways, fighting the endless tide, good luck with that, or removing the reasons for immigration, also good luck with that. The US can't improve other countries arbitrarily, especially not when its own budget is getting increasingly tight. A start would be drug policy, since drugs are one of the major destabilizing factors in south america. Until there are results, it's back to trying to stem the tide. As much as I'd like to see everyone in a good lifestyle, there's no nation on earth that can provide that on this scale at this time.

[Nervium]

Governments have always tried to stop mass immigration into their countries.

The trick is to make the rest of the world a better place. People would stop moving en masse to your country if their own country was well off as well. Don't get me wrong, individuals would still move around, but the mass migration is only because their former place is crappier than their destination. Even if they end up in the lower class of their new society.

Blaat, stop using reason, stahp.

[Scepez]

Immigration? What's that!
Seriously, we have like almost zero immigrants here. Well, some Russians, but that's about it.

As for the US dealing with Immigrants, well if they want to be the bastion of Democracy and Freedom they should allow everyone to take a slice of the cake .

[Fortschritte]

Opposition to immigration in the Western World is often caused by a fear of foreigners and downright xenophobia. It's irrational, stupid, and dangerous. Anyways, I support amnesty for undocumented immigrants, as undocumented immigrants often work extremely hard to get to the US, or other countries, and deporting them would be unfair and expensive.

[Grave_n_idle]

Opposition to immigration in the Western World is often caused by a fear of foreigners and downright xenophobia. It's irrational, stupid, and dangerous. Anyways, I support amnesty for undocumented immigrants, as undocumented immigrants often work extremely hard to get to the US, or other countries, and deporting them would be unfair and expensive.

Indeed, just looking at the money - amnesty is by far the best option. Amnestied immigrants are officially registered and pay all their taxes. Amnestied immigrants have a vested interest in their actual place of residence, and spend more money there. Amnestied immigrants also participate more in their local communities.

They also don't need to be tracked down, which is incredibly expensive.

So amnesty saves money AND generates money in local and national economies. Amnesty really is the only fiscally responsible choice.

[Terra Sector Union]

I am Pro-Immigration, but against amnesty for illegal immigrants for economical reasons. This whole ethnic preservation against the "mass immigrant hoards" is bullshit, especially in countries that were former European colonies.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I'm not necessarily against immigration, but I'm very against how the UK has handled it, both as a government and a society.

[Maurepas]

I support open borders. I don't see the issue with the fear of immigration and such. After all the fastest way to ensure that immigrants can't find work or the work they find is underpaid and exploitative is to ensure that at any moment they can be found out, arrested, and deported.

With citizenship comes the ability to demand higher wages and contribute to society. As for Obama's actions, as with many of his actions, I don't think it goes far enough, and offering partial amnesty without ensuring citizenship merely reinforces the ability for users of cheap labor to continue their further exploitation of those immigrants. But I recognize there's only so much he can do with a crap Congress.

[New Norse]

USA is a stolen country. The natives are less than 1% of the population. So i could not care less about how many immigrants they take in. Here in Sweden on the other hand i think we should take in less immigrants because i don't want us to become a minority in our own country.

[Atlanticatia]

I support immigration and multiculturalism. No one should have to live in the shadows, as many undocumented immigrants are. Obama's executive action put a band-aid on the situation, but true legal residency is needed. We need to ensure that people are paying taxes, receiving the minimum wage, etc. That they can contribute to society. We've always had immigration from Latin America, however it has become particularly pronounced recently because of NAFTA, in particular. We can't ignore the problem, we have to act productively.

In the future, immigration should work like this:

There should be a quota for immigration each year, something like 1.5-3 million. There should be 3 immigration streams:

- Points Based Stream: Skilled immigrants should be able to come to the US, if they meet certain conditions - gaining certain points. Similar to the Canadian system. Here's the Canadian points system overview, it could work well here: http://www.workpermit.com/canada/points_calculator.htm There could be a fast-track for permanent residency for these people.
- Working 'Holiday' Stream: There should be reciprocal agreements with many countries, for young people aged 18-35 to come to the US for up to a year(and travel and work during their travels), and Americans should be able to go to the other countries, too.
- Unskilled worker system: About 200,000 people (who are in good health and are not criminals) should be able to come to the US and seek employment, regardless of their skilled or unskilled status. This would quell undocumented immigration. Poorer immigrants from Mexico, for example, would be able to come via a legal avenue. They'd have to wait their turn, but would be able to get in, up to a certain quota. We'd be able to control how many people come in, too. If people find good employment, set down roots, etc then there could be a path to permanent residency.

[Greater-London]

My ideal "default" immigration setting would be one that's fairly relaxed about who comes in and in what numbers. Although it is worth noting that this changes depending on situation, sometimes you may want lots of immigration and sometimes you may want very small numbers. Its certainly not one size fits all and any rational immigration policy changes with the times.

The problem with the immigration debate is that very often immigrants are blamed for all our problems OR they are wonderful, selfless beings who only want to care for us and bring peace. The truth of the matter is immigrants are people, some of them are good some of them are bad; as such immigration and immigrants tends to be neither good nor bad but just something that happens.

As for our current crop of anti-immigrant politicians in the EU you can blame the soft left for that. The last two decades anyone who dared say immigration was anything OTHER than good had to be a racist. Not only is that patently untrue but it pushes normal people into the hands of genuine racists and xeneophobes.

[Temujinn]

I side with economics and Economics say, stop being hard on illegals becuase they actually create economic growth and put more money into the economy than out.
I dont support amnesty, I support not being so hard on people sneaking in, we dont WANT them documented.

Basically if your claim is that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are an economic drain on our nation you are 1. a Liar, 2. Stupid-- No not ignorant because you didnt do research before you made a claim, which makes you STUPID 3. You are a xenophobic racist trying to hide behind econimics lies.

IN actuality you are likely a lying stupid racist-- the trifecta of anti-immigration crowd. What you are not is ; Educated, You do not possess American Values, You are not a Conservative, you are also likely not good in bed.
I could literally spend hours linking economic studies showing that immigration both legal and illegal do absolutely no harm to the economy and actually offer net gains and increased wages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magaz ... d=all&_r=0
http://www.cfr.org/immigration/economic ... ion/p12969
http://business.time.com/2013/01/30/the ... s-and-why/
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... us-economy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/ ... -all-work/
http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... f3fbc1d354
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... f3fbc1d354
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/immi ... eople.html
http://g92.org/find-answers/economics/
http://www.analysisonline.org/site/aoar ... =140001400

"Alan Greenspan, PhD, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, stated in his Apr. 30, 2009 testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security:
"[T]here is little doubt that unauthorized, that is, illegal, immigration has made a significant contribution to the growth of our economy. Between 2000 and 2007, for example, it accounted for more than a sixth of the increase in our total civilian labor force. The illegal part of the civilian labor force diminished last year as the economy slowed, though illegals still comprised an estimated 5% of our total civilian labor force. Unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged when the economy falters.
Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.
However the estimated wage suppression and fiscal costs are relatively small, and economists generally view the overall economic benefits of this workforce as significantly outweighing the costs."

Apr. 30, 2009 - Alan Greenspan, PhD"

Francine J. Lipman, MBA, LLM, Professor of Law, Business and Economics at Chapman University, wrote in a Spring 2006 Tax Lawyer essay titled "Taxing Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation":
"Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false... [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed [according to the Dec. 1995 study by Julian L. Simon, "Immigration, the Demographic & Economic Facts," of the Cato Institute and the National Immigration Forum] have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy."

Spring 2006 - Francine J. Lipman, MBA, LLM

Raul Hinojosa, PhD, Associate Professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), wrote in his July 18, 2005 BusinessWeek interview "A Massive Economic Development Boom":
"First and foremost, [illegal immigration] it's a source of value added. The total goods and services that they consume through their paycheck, plus all that they produce for their employers, is close to about $800 billion. They're also producing at relatively lower costs because the undocumented population typically gets about 20% less in wages than if they were legalized. That leads to lower prices for us and higher profits to employers. In addition, they're obviously a huge consumer base. We've seen that 90% of the wages that the undocumented population gets are spent inside the U.S. Remittances are sent abroad, but that only represents about 10% of immigrants' income. The numbers are becoming quite huge. We estimate about $50 billion dollars in remittances this year. That means that total consumptive capacity remaining in the U.S. is $400 billion to $450 billion. If you took away the undocumented population, it would be the worst economic disaster in the history of the U.S."

July 18, 2005 - Raul Hinojosa, PhD

[Conserative Morality]

Open up the borders; remind the world we're a country of immigrants, whatever the objections of WASPs and their supporters.