• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

immigration past and present

 
 
 
B

BH

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
1,433
Location
United States-Texas
Basic Beliefs
Muslim
I've been following some of the arguments about immigration.

One argument that stands out is that we can't stop immigrants from coming here in the here an now because we are historically speaking a nation of immigrants.

Why should this be so? Just because our ancestors may have all been immigrants at some point in the past does not mean we are not able to stop or cull immigration today if for some reason it is in our interests today.

We had slavery in the past too. According to the logic above we should still have slavery today because we had it in the past.

I am not trying to argue the immigration we see today is good or bad or neutral. I just do not see the logic of the argument above in defending it.
 
Cbi8BgUUEAA4Q5o.jpg
 
Nobody makes the argument that we must apply the rules of immigration that existed in the past forever.

This is a Strawman argument.

But people of reason do say that US violence in Iraq that has spilled over into Syria makes the US responsible for the human lives it has displaced.

But when you are the most powerful you never have to live up to your responsibilities.
 
Ideally people who wanted to invade Iraq would have to take in unvetted Iraqi and Syrian refugees or possible terrorists, while lefties (and right wing Lindberg style isolationists) who were against it would have no risk.
 
BH said:
I've been following some of the arguments about immigration.

One argument that stands out is that we can't stop immigrants from coming here in the here an now because we are historically speaking a nation of immigrants.

Why should this be so? Just because our ancestors may have all been immigrants at some point in the past does not mean we are not able to stop or cull immigration today if for some reason it is in our interests today.

We had slavery in the past too. According to the logic above we should still have slavery today because we had it in the past.

I am not trying to argue the immigration we see today is good or bad or neutral. I just do not see the logic of the argument above in defending it.
Click to expand...

That's because you have mistaken this for an argument in favour of immigration; but it is NOT.

It is an observation that is intended to refute the anti-immigration argument that immigrants will, by their mere arrival, cause the destruction of (or a disaster for) our nation.

This cannot be true, because we had mass immigration in the past, yet our nation is still here, and no disaster has befallen her (at least, not one that was caused by immigrants).

Of course, how good a rebuttal that is depends on your opinion of the current state of the nation - there are people who hark back to a golden age of purity and universal wealth and happiness. But history tells us that no such age actually existed.

People are not saying that immigration is desirable, because we had it before; They are saying that it isn't necessarily disastrous, and that the evidence for that can be found in our history. It is a claim that the anti-immigration arguments are inadequate, not a pro-immigration argument in its own right.
 
bilby said:
BH said:
I've been following some of the arguments about immigration.

One argument that stands out is that we can't stop immigrants from coming here in the here an now because we are historically speaking a nation of immigrants.

Why should this be so? Just because our ancestors may have all been immigrants at some point in the past does not mean we are not able to stop or cull immigration today if for some reason it is in our interests today.

We had slavery in the past too. According to the logic above we should still have slavery today because we had it in the past.

I am not trying to argue the immigration we see today is good or bad or neutral. I just do not see the logic of the argument above in defending it.
Click to expand...

That's because you have mistaken this for an argument in favour of immigration; but it is NOT.

It is an observation that is intended to refute the anti-immigration argument that immigrants will, by their mere arrival, cause the destruction of (or a disaster for) our nation.

This cannot be true, because we had mass immigration in the past, yet our nation is still here, and no disaster has befallen her (at least, not one that was caused by immigrants).

Of course, how good a rebuttal that is depends on your opinion of the current state of the nation - there are people who hark back to a golden age of purity and universal wealth and happiness. But history tells us that no such age actually existed.

People are not saying that immigration is desirable, because we had it before; They are saying that it isn't necessarily disastrous, and that the evidence for that can be found in our history. It is a claim that the anti-immigration arguments are inadequate, not a pro-immigration argument in its own right.
Click to expand...


I can understand the argument when framed the way you have.

Yes, a lot of people think everything in the past was all hunky dory "Little House on the Prairie" when it really wasn't.
 
There is also a big issue being made of illegal immigration. We have to have guest workers here, that is workers, usually from Mexico who come here to work in agriculture jobs. We need them because there are not enough citizens that will take these jobs.

Now, it is argued that we should then pay more so citizens will take these jobs. This has been tried in several ag industries and what happens is that our producers can not compete with foreign produce and they end up stopping the production of that crop and either allow the land to go fallow or use it for feed crops. This would be ok, except then we become more and more dependent on foreign markets for our food. IMO we are better off allowing guest workers, and just do a better job keeping track of them, which I believe is the case right now.
 
BH said:
I've been following some of the arguments about immigration.

One argument that stands out is that we can't stop immigrants from coming here in the here an now because we are historically speaking a nation of immigrants.

Why should this be so? Just because our ancestors may have all been immigrants at some point in the past does not mean we are not able to stop or cull immigration today if for some reason it is in our interests today.

We had slavery in the past too. According to the logic above we should still have slavery today because we had it in the past.

I am not trying to argue the immigration we see today is good or bad or neutral. I just do not see the logic of the argument above in defending it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the "we were all immigrants" argument is intended to justify any level of immigration or to justify illegal immigration, but to cut through some of the vitriol directed toward immigration and immigrants.
 
BH said:
I've been following some of the arguments about immigration.

One argument that stands out is that we can't stop immigrants from coming here in the here an now because we are historically speaking a nation of immigrants.

Why should this be so? Just because our ancestors may have all been immigrants at some point in the past does not mean we are not able to stop or cull immigration today if for some reason it is in our interests today.

We had slavery in the past too. According to the logic above we should still have slavery today because we had it in the past.

I am not trying to argue the immigration we see today is good or bad or neutral. I just do not see the logic of the argument above in defending it.
Click to expand...

But you are arguing that slavery is equal to immigration. I understand why people are against illegal immigration. But it's a tough issue for me. For the people born in the US, we won the lottery. We really did. If I had been born in Mexico, and I had tiny kids to support, I would do whatever it took to provide for them. I would cross into the US and do whatever it took to become a legal worker here.
 
Tristan Scott said:
There is also a big issue being made of illegal immigration. We have to have guest workers here, that is workers, usually from Mexico who come here to work in agriculture jobs. We need them because there are not enough citizens that will take these jobs.

Now, it is argued that we should then pay more so citizens will take these jobs. This has been tried in several ag industries and what happens is that our producers can not compete with foreign produce and they end up stopping the production of that crop and either allow the land to go fallow or use it for feed crops. This would be ok, except then we become more and more dependent on foreign markets for our food. IMO we are better off allowing guest workers, and just do a better job keeping track of them, which I believe is the case right now.
Click to expand...

It is one of the ironies of the entire illegal immigration mess that it really didn't get to be bad until we beefed up border security. It turned an annual migration of seasonal agricultural workers into an around the year resident population of illegals and their families. Because once they were in the US the enhanced border security made it more difficult and expensive to cross the border. So they brought their families here and looked for year around work, taking our jobs, not just the agricultural jobs that we didn't want. Unintended consequences.

And we have and have had for a long time a guest worker program for agriculture workers. But it is so complex and expensive that almost no one uses it.
 
SimpleDon said:
Tristan Scott said:
There is also a big issue being made of illegal immigration. We have to have guest workers here, that is workers, usually from Mexico who come here to work in agriculture jobs. We need them because there are not enough citizens that will take these jobs.

Now, it is argued that we should then pay more so citizens will take these jobs. This has been tried in several ag industries and what happens is that our producers can not compete with foreign produce and they end up stopping the production of that crop and either allow the land to go fallow or use it for feed crops. This would be ok, except then we become more and more dependent on foreign markets for our food. IMO we are better off allowing guest workers, and just do a better job keeping track of them, which I believe is the case right now.
Click to expand...

It is one of the ironies of the entire illegal immigration mess that it really didn't get to be bad until we beefed up border security. It turned an annual migration of seasonal agricultural workers into an around the year resident population of illegals and their families. Because once they were in the US the enhanced border security made it more difficult and expensive to cross the border. So they brought their families here and looked for year around work, taking our jobs, not just the agricultural jobs that we didn't want. Unintended consequences.

And we have and have had for a long time a guest worker program for agriculture workers. But it is so complex and expensive that almost no one uses it.
Click to expand...

That's a great point.
 
As a child I picked berries and beans.There were migrant workers.Mostly Mexican,but some whites.To us migrant workers were just people that traveled with the crops.
Why can't we do the same now?
 
bilby said:
BH said:
I've been following some of the arguments about immigration.

One argument that stands out is that we can't stop immigrants from coming here in the here an now because we are historically speaking a nation of immigrants.

Why should this be so? Just because our ancestors may have all been immigrants at some point in the past does not mean we are not able to stop or cull immigration today if for some reason it is in our interests today.

We had slavery in the past too. According to the logic above we should still have slavery today because we had it in the past.

I am not trying to argue the immigration we see today is good or bad or neutral. I just do not see the logic of the argument above in defending it.
Click to expand...

That's because you have mistaken this for an argument in favour of immigration; but it is NOT.

It is an observation that is intended to refute the anti-immigration argument that immigrants will, by their mere arrival, cause the destruction of (or a disaster for) our nation.

This cannot be true, because we had mass immigration in the past, yet our nation is still here, and no disaster has befallen her (at least, not one that was caused by immigrants).

Of course, how good a rebuttal that is depends on your opinion of the current state of the nation - there are people who hark back to a golden age of purity and universal wealth and happiness. But history tells us that no such age actually existed.

People are not saying that immigration is desirable, because we had it before; They are saying that it isn't necessarily disastrous, and that the evidence for that can be found in our history. It is a claim that the anti-immigration arguments are inadequate, not a pro-immigration argument in its own right.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of immigrants entering into the USA and Europe have intentions to work. However given the volume of people that are entering in unprecedented numbers, there are statistically some problems occurring with respect to security. In the UK there are concerns at exploited labour such as fruit picking, farming where some illegal workers are being used by ruthless contractors. I also believe that polish people sharing 6 to a room and take bottom dollar by UK standards, can send the money back home to Poland. This means that a British person who has a house now risks losing the same standard of living if they do the same job. Things are much cheaper in Poland for the time being and such immigration would amount to unfair competition.

To prevent guest workers taking jobs of others, some countries like Hong Kong SAR have legislated that foreign workers are paid a minimum that is the equivalent to local rates. This did not damage its growth but the opposite occurred. After all if 100,000 migrant workers have money to spend, they create more jobs locally.
 
Harry_Bosch said:
BH said:
One argument that stands out is that we can't stop immigrants from coming here in the here an now because we are historically speaking a nation of immigrants.

Why should this be so? Just because our ancestors may have all been immigrants at some point in the past does not mean we are not able to stop or cull immigration today if for some reason it is in our interests today.

We had slavery in the past too. According to the logic above we should still have slavery today because we had it in the past.
Click to expand...

But you are arguing that slavery is equal to immigration.
Click to expand...
No he isn't. He's offering slavery as a counterexample to the inference rule implicitly relied on in the "We have to allow immigration now because historically that's where our nation came from." argument, in order to refute that argument by showing that its inference rule is invalid. Thinking a counterexample is a claim that things are equal seems to be a remarkably common logical fallacy on this forum. :banghead:
 
Bomb#20 said:
Harry_Bosch said:
But you are arguing that slavery is equal to immigration.
Click to expand...
No he isn't. He's offering slavery as a counterexample to the inference rule implicitly relied on in the "We have to allow immigration now because historically that's where our nation came from." argument, in order to refute that argument by showing that its inference rule is invalid. Thinking a counterexample is a claim that things are equal seems to be a remarkably common logical fallacy on this forum. :banghead:
Click to expand...

I really wasn't trying to attack his post. I understand why people are against illegal immigration. For me, it's a personal issue. If I lived in Mexico and had a family, I would do anything that I could do to get to the US. My main point that I clumsily attempted to say is that slavery is morally wrong under all circumstances. Immigration is not.
 
SimpleDon said:
And we have and have had for a long time a guest worker program for agriculture workers. But it is so complex and expensive that almost no one uses it.
Click to expand...
Oh, thats not true at all. It is used extensively around the border. 90% of our winter vegetables are grown in areas around the border in Yuma county in Arizona and Imperial county in California. This produce is grown and harvested almost exclusively with guest labor. This is why when you visit these areas there are Border patrol checkpoints on all the highways leaving these areas. Now, I agree that guest worker programs are impractical in other than border areas, however that doesn't overcome the problems of the viability of agriculture in the US. The US will always be able to produce crops that can be harvested mechanically, but crops that require human labor are dying out here and we are becoming more and more dependent on foreign producers. I see this as a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom