Illegal Immigration in US: Open Borders & citizenship or no?

[Neutraligon]

I never claimed that they were part of Mexican culture, I claimed that there is a common culture between the southern parts of Texas New Mexico and Arizona and the Northern part of what is now Mexico. This culture is distinct from other parts of Mexico as well as other parts of the US.

That culture emerged well after the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The border was there first.

And no they have a far larger impact then that. They are the origin of cowboy culture in the US. What was common at the time for Spain was missions, which had a very large effect on the surrounding native population.

Spain provided the original archetype for the cowboy, but it soon took on a distinct American form.

And the Spanish legacy on the surrounding natives was largely just killing them.

No that culture existed from the time the first missionaries started using Native labor since one of the few products they were able to make a profit on was hides and tallow.

Indeed, but that is a common culture right there that is shared across the border. You claimed that it had little to no effect, when cowboy culture and the ranches, as well as the existence of a a patron who could convince his entire group of followers to vote one way or the other are a common culture that greatly affected and still affects the region today.

[Hansberg]

I'd rather not watch you Yanks continue to commit demographic suicide. I'm not advocating for closed borders, but strict restrictions need to be kept in place to make sure that skilled and productive immigrants, all of whom can integrate well into American culture, are the ones being accepted. Ideally, America could keep out most non-white and non-east asian immigrants in the name of ensuring that american culture is retained.

Until then, I'll nod my head in disapproval from across the pond.

[Sam Hyde]

That culture emerged well after the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The border was there first.



Spain provided the original archetype for the cowboy, but it soon took on a distinct American form.

And the Spanish legacy on the surrounding natives was largely just killing them.

No that culture existed from the time the first missionaries started using Native labor since one of the few products they were able to make a profit on was hides and tallow.

Indeed, but that is a common culture right there that is shared across the border. You claimed that it had little to no effect, when cowboy culture and the ranches, as well as the existence of a a patron who could convince his entire group of followers to vote one way or the other are a common culture that greatly affected and still affects the region today.

Granted, I'll say you're correct here, but that's just one shared aspect, rather than a common cultural identity across the Southwest and Northern Mexico.

Also, it's largely one-way. The Southwestern US is a lot more Mexicanized than Northern Mexico is is Americanized.

[Sam Hyde]

I'd rather not watch you Yanks continue to commit demographic suicide. I'm not advocating for closed borders, but strict restrictions need to be kept in place to make sure that skilled and productive immigrants, all of whom can integrate well into American culture, are the ones being accepted. Ideally, America could keep out most non-white and non-east asian immigrants in the name of ensuring that american culture is retained.

Until then, I'll nod my head in disapproval from across the pond.

That would be ideal.

[Neutraligon]

No that culture existed from the time the first missionaries started using Native labor since one of the few products they were able to make a profit on was hides and tallow.

Indeed, but that is a common culture right there that is shared across the border. You claimed that it had little to no effect, when cowboy culture and the ranches, as well as the existence of a a patron who could convince his entire group of followers to vote one way or the other are a common culture that greatly affected and still affects the region today.

Granted, I'll say you're correct here, but that's just one shared aspect, rather than a common cultural identity across the Southwest and Northern Mexico.

Also, it's largely one-way. The Southwestern US is a lot more Mexicanized than Northern Mexico is is Americanized.

I am not sure Mexicans would agree with you on that point.

What is happening by building a wall on that border is similar to the building of the wall between East and West Germany.

[Orsailes]

I'd rather not watch you Yanks continue to commit demographic suicide. I'm not advocating for closed borders, but strict restrictions need to be kept in place to make sure that skilled and productive immigrants, all of whom can integrate well into American culture, are the ones being accepted. Ideally, America could keep out most non-white and non-east asian immigrants in the name of ensuring that american culture is retained.

Until then, I'll nod my head in disapproval from across the pond.

"American Culture"

Holy shit that made me laugh more than it did.

Like fucking seriously it's almost as if it's white only.

[Egemore]

make sure that skilled and productive immigrants, all of whom can integrate well into American culture, are the ones being accepted.

I think this is actually a place where the pro-immigration and pro-restriction sides can find common ground. Hell, even DONALD TRUMP said that it's stupid that we educate people in the United States and then kick them out of the US. While I'd argue for increased low-skilled immigration as well, hopefully we can agree that we should have extremely substantial increase on high skilled immigration. We'd ignore many of the benefits of increased low skilled immigration, but at least it would be much better than current policy

[Rio Cana]

I never claimed that they were part of Mexican culture, I claimed that there is a common culture between the southern parts of Texas New Mexico and Arizona and the Northern part of what is now Mexico. This culture is distinct from other parts of Mexico as well as other parts of the US.

That culture emerged well after the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The border was there first.

And no they have a far larger impact then that. They are the origin of cowboy culture in the US. What was common at the time for Spain was missions, which had a very large effect on the surrounding native population.

Spain provided the original archetype for the cowboy, but it soon took on a distinct American form.

And the Spanish legacy on the surrounding natives was largely just killing them.

Not completely true. The Spaniards when it came to the Pueblo natives of New Mexico were at first repressive until they were forced out of NM. by the Pueblo natives. But they came back but this time let the Pueblo natives keep there religion and cultural ways. Also, they gave them land grants with full protection of the law. It is because of these land grants that the Pueblo natives still control there original lands unlike most US natives that were forced off there original lands. Of course, after the US took over NM. regular New Mexicans started having problems with so called land swindlers.
Read this - http://www.albuqhistsoc.org/SecondSite/ ... grants.htm

This on the history of the cowboy - http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cowboyculture.htm

Seems some in the US are misinformed since illegal immigration has been down. Has things improve in Mexico and has Mexicans have less children there is no need to go North.

Some researchers say factors other than security are playing a role and might even account for much of the reduced flow of illegal immigrants. These researchers point, for instance, to changes in Latin America that could be pushing fewer people to seek a better life in the United States.

Any growth in the so called US Mexican population is the result of Mexican Americans having plenty of kids and not Mexicans, illegal or not, crossing from Mexico to the US. The Mexican American and overall US Hispanic population in the US is expected to continue grow substancially even if no one from Latin American migrated to the US.

[Orsailes]

I'd rather not watch you Yanks continue to commit demographic suicide. I'm not advocating for closed borders, but strict restrictions need to be kept in place to make sure that skilled and productive immigrants, all of whom can integrate well into American culture, are the ones being accepted. Ideally, America could keep out most non-white and non-east asian immigrants in the name of ensuring that american culture is retained.

Until then, I'll nod my head in disapproval from across the pond.

That would be ideal.

Ideal that a heavily influenced "culture" be secluded from its influences and become a European-only mix?

[Mushet]

The Apache welcomed American armies with open arms?

Not any less than they welcomed Santa Anna's armies, that's for sure.

Mexico is a colonial state too and I don't really care for it. I also don't care for that silly fence that America clumsily built within the bounds of the United States and over the private property of Americans and across indigenous territories that is not merely a source of mockery but also something that has actual negative consequences. I also don't care for this silly and somewhat hypocritical xenophobic attitude that is at the root of this debate.

[ErVaReAn rEpUbLiC]

Perhaps open borders without guaranteed welfare and citizenship, and have fees for other government services, until a certain amount of time has passed or some other requirement like employment. After all a 150 million adults wish to immigrate to the US, and I imagine even a small share of that number arriving simultaneously would put a large strain on government services in the short term.

Edit: A "Schengen Area" consisting of the US and Canada seems reasonable enough.

[Eol Sha]

This topic is specifically talking about America, and illegal immigration in America.

Illegal Immigration in America, is something that is either typically suppressed or "left alone". A lot of undocumented immigrants come from Mexico, around ~52% of illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and a overwhelming majority come from the Americas, that much is fact now. However, is it really that much of a good thing to let all these immigrants in? Would it be right to start cracking down on the border much more than we have now? Or should we let them in and have them get a legal shot at conforming to America with at least citizenship? Do we allow these illegal immigrants to work?

So NSG, what is your opinion? My own opinion is that a open border should be established, much like the American-Canadian border, and allow civilians that attempt to cross into America have chances to reform into citizens.

As far as I can tell the US and Canada don't have an open border. There are still border checks and border guards. A real open border is more like the Schengen Area in Europe.

As for me, I think it makes sense for the time being to maintain a system that requires border checks. While I believe the current system is overly draconian, and it doesn't help that we've got governors like Rick Perry and Greg Abbott playing cowboy, I don't think that the US is ready for open borders with anyone. A possible exception being with Canada, but that's a maybe that I wouldn't bet money on..

[Imperium Sidhicum]

If people want to immigrate and settle down in a country, they should do it legally through proper channels. Anything else is against the law and therefore a crime to be punished.

Citizenship is a privilege that shouldn't be given to just anybody, which is why there exist proper procedures for immigrating and obtaining it legally. Such a procedure exists for a reason, to filter out criminals, extremists, welfare leeches and other unsavoury characters from those who arrive with the intent to become good, hard-working law-abiding citizens and patriots of their new home country.

Tolerating illegal immigration to any degree is harmful to state and society in many ways. The simple act of illegaly entering a foreign country is a crime in itself, facilitating such entry for profit is human trafficking that is no doubt a lucrative business these days, illegal immigration facilitates corruption, as local officials are paid off to look the other way, enslavement and exploitation as illegals are put to toil in sweatshops or worse by those who benefit from their trafficking, and deprives the state of tax income, as the migrants are employed illegally, often for the purpose to evade taxation. It increases overall crime, as illegal immigrants are unable to find ways to support themselves legally, many consequently turning to crime. Lastly, tolerating illegal immigration sends a message to others who might follow the suit that it is safe and acceptable to enter the given country illegally.

Some might argue that most of those problems would go away, if there was no such thing as "illegal" immigration, all newcomers being granted automatic legal citizenship. However, without proper process to separate the proverbial chaff from wheat, the resulting flour will be of a pretty shitty quality, causing more trouble than it is worth in the end.

[Teemant]

USA has 1 million legal immigrants a year alone so keeping illegal immigration down is a smart move. Every developed nation has and should have control over it's borders.

[MERIZoC]

Borders are an inherently repressive and statist construct. People have the right to the freedom to walk where they want.

[Yorkvale]

Free trade is incompatible with immigration restrictions.

Open Borders = better lives

It would double global gdp, increase employment opportunities and business opportunities.

I see no downsides, only idiotic arguments aimed at "fairness for those that came legally". Or super nationalists that refuse to acknowledge the existence of other cultures. I'm a centrist in most aspects, but in terms of immigration I see no middle ground on this.

[Imperial Esplanade]

^^

Doesn't understand the notion of checking up on, and identifying, those who cross national borders to see if they are criminals or just ordinary citizens.

[Yorkvale]

^^

Doesn't understand the notion of checking up on, and identifying, those who cross national borders to see if they are criminals or just ordinary citizens.

So we check if people are criminals when they cross from deleware into maryland?

Regardless, open borders would make finding criminals easier as ordinary people trying to make their way into the promised land wouldn't be confused with terrorists as both do equally suspicious behavior when their family and financial futures are on the line. Open borders would allow immigrants to be open and straight forward when coming through designated pathways checked by policy officers. Whereas drug dealers would obviously still want to use suspicious routes and there would be far less if any normal people moving the same routes as drug dealers.

[Imperial Esplanade]

^^

Doesn't understand the notion of checking up on, and identifying, those who cross national borders to see if they are criminals or just ordinary citizens.

So we check if people are criminals when they cross from deleware into maryland?

Regardless, open borders would make finding criminals easier as ordinary people trying to make their way into the promised land wouldn't be confused with terrorists as both do equally suspicious behavior when their family and financial futures are on the line. Open borders would allow immigrants to be open and straight forward when coming through designated pathways checked by policy officers. Whereas drug dealers would obviously still want to use suspicious routes and there would be far less if any normal people moving the same routes as drug dealers.

You're kidding me, right? There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between national borders and state borders, with folks having vastly different reasons to travel state-to-state as opposed to nation-to-nation. I think you're naive to even support the idea of an open-border. I don't agree with Donald Trump over much of anything, especially immigration, but he is spot on when he says that borders are what defines a country. No, it is not a nationalist notion whatsoever to support permeable borders, its' one that strongly supports the idea of making sure those coming in to our country aren't folks who want to tear it apart. Without borders, we practically don't have a country as it geopolitically defines who we are as citizens on the international stage. Also, considering the overwhelming majority of people who travel state-to-state are already US citizens, I wouldn't think interstate travelers would pose that much of a national security risk to begin with... and your solution to illegal border crossing is to open the borders even more? That's the equivalent to saying the solution to a leaking dam is to poke more holes into it and hoping the leaking stops altogether.

[Egemore]

Free trade is incompatible with immigration restrictions.

Open Borders = better lives

It would double global gdp, increase employment opportunities and business opportunities.

I see no downsides, only idiotic arguments aimed at "fairness for those that came legally". Or super nationalists that refuse to acknowledge the existence of other cultures. I'm a centrist in most aspects, but in terms of immigration I see no middle ground on this.

Open borders is a good starting point for theory, but there are practical issues. The benefits of immigration are massive, and our discussion on immigration should focus on how much we can expand, rather than restrict it.

However, I think there is a pretty legitimate argument against open borders based on cultural/institutional concerns. If 1 Billion people came to the US, the integrity of institutions likely would not hold. If such people were not granted voting rights over cultural concerns, there would be major issues with democratic legitimacy. If such people were granted voting rights, the policies enacted may be more similar to failing home country policies than successful US ones.

Granted, this isn't where we are yet. US institutions are not under threat from immigration, and thus we could stand to increase it. But to say that "there are no legitimate arguments" isn't accurate in my view, even as a pretty pro-immigration person.

[Yorkvale]

So we check if people are criminals when they cross from deleware into maryland?

Regardless, open borders would make finding criminals easier as ordinary people trying to make their way into the promised land wouldn't be confused with terrorists as both do equally suspicious behavior when their family and financial futures are on the line. Open borders would allow immigrants to be open and straight forward when coming through designated pathways checked by policy officers. Whereas drug dealers would obviously still want to use suspicious routes and there would be far less if any normal people moving the same routes as drug dealers.

You're kidding me, right? There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between national borders and state borders, with folks having vastly different reasons to travel state-to-state as opposed to nation-to-nation. I think you're naive to even support the idea of an open-border. I don't agree with Donald Trump over much of anything, especially immigration, but he is spot on when he says that borders are what defines a country. No, it is not a nationalist notion whatsoever to support permeable borders, its' one that strongly supports the idea of making sure those coming in to our country aren't folks who want to tear it apart. Without borders, we practically don't have a country as it geopolitically defines who we are as citizens on the international stage. Also, considering the overwhelming majority of people who travel state-to-state are already US citizens, I wouldn't think interstate travelers would pose that much of a national security risk to begin with... and your solution to illegal border crossing is to open the borders even more? That's the equivalent to saying the solution to a leaking dam is to poke more holes into it and hoping the leaking stops altogether.

Actually, you have it the other way around. See the ideal solution here is that everyone interested in immigrating to a different country can do so through a proper channel efficiently and quickly and there being hardly any restrictions other than that of a background check. That's not what we have today. We have a broken immigration system filled with bureaucracy and missteps everywhere, to the extent that coming over legal isn't even a viable option given how long it can take. I think there were quite a few embarrassing instances where the waiting period was over 100 years... There are simply too many steps, too many calculations, etc for this to be an efficient way to get ahead for most people. This leads to people coming over illegally through the same channels mind you, that ACTUAL criminals come through. If anything that is a bigger threat to national security in and of itself due to all the traffic being caused to make the criminal's job easier to slip through undetected being the equivalent to a needle in the haystack. Open borders would shrink that haystack and allow police officers and criminal investigators to do their jobs.

[Imperial Esplanade]

You're kidding me, right? There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between national borders and state borders, with folks having vastly different reasons to travel state-to-state as opposed to nation-to-nation. I think you're naive to even support the idea of an open-border. I don't agree with Donald Trump over much of anything, especially immigration, but he is spot on when he says that borders are what defines a country. No, it is not a nationalist notion whatsoever to support permeable borders, its' one that strongly supports the idea of making sure those coming in to our country aren't folks who want to tear it apart. Without borders, we practically don't have a country as it geopolitically defines who we are as citizens on the international stage. Also, considering the overwhelming majority of people who travel state-to-state are already US citizens, I wouldn't think interstate travelers would pose that much of a national security risk to begin with... and your solution to illegal border crossing is to open the borders even more? That's the equivalent to saying the solution to a leaking dam is to poke more holes into it and hoping the leaking stops altogether.

Actually, you have it the other way around. See the ideal solution here is that everyone interested in immigrating to a different country can do so through a proper channel efficiently and quickly and there being hardly any restrictions other than that of a background check. That's not what we have today. We have a broken immigration system filled with bureaucracy and missteps everywhere, to the extent that coming over legal isn't even a viable option given how long it can take. I think there were quite a few embarrassing instances where the waiting period was over 100 years... There are simply too many steps, too many calculations, etc for this to be an efficient way to get ahead for most people. This leads to people coming over illegally through the same channels mind you, that ACTUAL criminals come through. If anything that is a bigger threat to national security in and of itself due to all the traffic being caused to make the criminal's job easier to slip through undetected being the equivalent to a needle in the haystack. Open borders would shrink that haystack and allow police officers and criminal investigators to do their jobs.

But you see, you're pointing to a broken immigration system that only needs to be simplified and refined to be more efficient and to work smoothly... it doesn't need to be drastically cut away, which I suspect would unintentionally only make those problems worse and border security practically nonexistent. While it would be nice to have open borders in a utopian society, we don't have the latter and I don't think its' wise to trust our f'ed up world with the former.

[Yorkvale]

Free trade is incompatible with immigration restrictions.

Open Borders = better lives

It would double global gdp, increase employment opportunities and business opportunities.

I see no downsides, only idiotic arguments aimed at "fairness for those that came legally". Or super nationalists that refuse to acknowledge the existence of other cultures. I'm a centrist in most aspects, but in terms of immigration I see no middle ground on this.

Open borders is a good starting point for theory, but there are practical issues. The benefits of immigration are massive, and our discussion on immigration should focus on how much we can expand, rather than restrict it.

However, I think there is a pretty legitimate argument against open borders based on cultural/institutional concerns. If 1 Billion people came to the US, the integrity of institutions likely would not hold. If such people were not granted voting rights over cultural concerns, there would be major issues with democratic legitimacy. If such people were granted voting rights, the policies enacted may be more similar to failing home country policies than successful US ones.

Granted, this isn't where we are yet. US institutions are not under threat from immigration, and thus we could stand to increase it. But to say that "there are no legitimate arguments" isn't accurate in my view, even as a pretty pro-immigration person.

I don't think this argument is legitimate, right off the bat you made an enormous exaggeration suggesting that 1 billion people would be all good and ready to set sail/flight/car ride to America in a heartbeat and immigration would be done as so. Obviously that wouldn't really happen, as you aren't calculating for all the people in America that immigration laws are actually preventing from leaving or the idea that people would be traveling in and out of America in entirety. Open Border laws would allow for a more natural influx and out flux of populations just as influxes and out fluxes of goods and services.

Also I very much doubt the political climate would change at all except for pushing more politicians to a pro immigration position out of fear of having a huge political disconnect with what seems to be a constantly growing demographic.

Which isn't entirely a bad thing. What your position assumes is that all immigrants have the same ideas and political values when in fact immigrants are much more diverse and often have more disagreements between themselves than they do foreigners.

Also I think you greatly underestimate the stability of our political structures.

[Yorkvale]

Actually, you have it the other way around. See the ideal solution here is that everyone interested in immigrating to a different country can do so through a proper channel efficiently and quickly and there being hardly any restrictions other than that of a background check. That's not what we have today. We have a broken immigration system filled with bureaucracy and missteps everywhere, to the extent that coming over legal isn't even a viable option given how long it can take. I think there were quite a few embarrassing instances where the waiting period was over 100 years... There are simply too many steps, too many calculations, etc for this to be an efficient way to get ahead for most people. This leads to people coming over illegally through the same channels mind you, that ACTUAL criminals come through. If anything that is a bigger threat to national security in and of itself due to all the traffic being caused to make the criminal's job easier to slip through undetected being the equivalent to a needle in the haystack. Open borders would shrink that haystack and allow police officers and criminal investigators to do their jobs.

But you see, you're pointing to a broken immigration system that only needs to be simplified and refined to be more efficient and to work smoothly... it doesn't need to be drastically cut away, which I suspect would unintentionally only make those problems worse and border security practically nonexistent. While it would be nice to have open borders in a utopian society, we don't have the latter and I don't think its' wise to trust our f'ed up world with the former.

Cutting it away does exactly what you state, unless you would still impose restrictions on non criminals which I would advocate against. And you still haven't actually refuted anything I've said about the needle in the haystack. How are we supposed to know if immigrants are harmful or not if we never even give them the chance to go through a passage way? Also open borders =/= lack of any security on the border. Put as many police officers as you would like on the border, and give them checkpoints. Just don't allow them to turn people away for the sole fact that they do not have the papers, and incredibly simplify the amount of paper work they actually need and make it accessible to everyone.

[Egemore]

I don't think this argument is legitimate, right off the bat you made an enormous exaggeration suggesting that 1 billion people would be all good and ready to set sail/flight/car ride to America in a heartbeat and immigration would be done as so.

Obviously that wouldn't really happen, as you aren't calculating for all the people in America that immigration laws are actually preventing from leaving or the idea that people would be traveling in and out of America in entirety. Open Border laws would allow for a more natural influx and out flux of populations just as influxes and out fluxes of goods and services.

Also I very much doubt the political climate would change at all except for pushing more politicians to a pro immigration position out of fear of having a huge political disconnect with what seems to be a constantly growing demographic.

Which isn't entirely a bad thing. What your position assumes is that all immigrants have the same ideas and political values when in fact immigrants are much more diverse and often have more disagreements between themselves than they do foreigners.

Also I think you greatly underestimate the stability of our political structures.

It was meant to be an example, not an exact figure. The point is that if many people came to the United States, they could negatively effect the integrity of institutions. Since people have different ideas about how things are run, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there could be stresses associated with complete open borders.

Look, I'm on your side. I want to see greatly increased immigration to the United States. However, unlike arguments about immigrants causing increased crime (unsupported by data, as well as sensible open borders precautions) or "stealing jobs" (unsupported by economics), I do not have a good answer to how increased immigration effects political systems, and in particular, public policy decisions. I'd want to see some data before I can make a decision, but given that I don't have this data, advocacy for greatly increased immigration makes more sense to me than open borders.