Colonialism v. Immigration v. National Borders v. Compassion – What’s the Solution?

JBG · Jun 30, 2018

The 1700's and the 1800's were the high-water marks for open immigration, and the expansion of European colonial empires. Motivated, entrepreneurial people left Europe and to a lesser extent Asia in droves for the New World countries of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As thinly populated (due to smallpox's effect on the native population) opened for settlement and trans-oceanic travel became routine the people came. The new worlds had little to offer other than land and opportunity. There were few objections because the migrations didn't cost much to the host countries. And they gained a source of cheap labor.

Colonialism was spurred by opportunities to import valued items, as well as, unfortunately, slave labor. People rationalized colonialism as improving the lot of natives. Christianity was to solve the problems of the world. In fact, it rationalized exploitation and racism. Conceding that, however, the living conditions of people who were not tribal chiefs or royalty was deplorable. When the colonial system went "bust" in the post WW II era, many, aided by air and fast ocean travel wanted to come. And the West had a high standard of living, as well as a welfare "safety net."

Pre-Congress of Vienna, and post 1914 life in Europe was a mess. What is now the "Third World" was always a mess but its people had no access to or knowledge of the West. Now, the U.S., Europe, Australia and Israel are beleaguered by the waves of people who want something better. However, by and large, they lack the education and/or work ethic needed to succeed in 21st Century society.

"Compassion" dictates throwing open the gates. Common sense dictates ensuring that the influx is manageable and that we get the best people. This, unfortunately, entails policies that most thinking people consider heartless. The tension between people who emphasize "heart" and those who emphasize "head" is enormous and divides people from their friends and colleagues.

Independence in the 1950's and 1960's has come with large amounts of aid. And private help. Think "We Are the World." And the "world" has nothing to show for it. Taxpayers in the more affluent countries cannot be expected to open their homes, hands and hearts endlessly. Perhaps the way to go is large-scale international aid, administered by the West. Sort of like a Peace Corp. on a large scale. We cannot shirk our moral duties to the world. However, for obvious reasons, in doing this we cannot respect the right of kleptocratic leaders to "self-determination."

OscarLevant · Jul 1, 2018

JBG said:
The 1700's and the 1800's were the high-water marks for open immigration, and the expansion of European colonial empires. Motivated, entrepreneurial people left Europe and to a lesser extent Asia in droves for the New World countries of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As thinly populated (due to smallpox's effect on the native population) opened for settlement and trans-oceanic travel became routine the people came. The new worlds had little to offer other than land and opportunity. There were few objections because the migrations didn't cost much to the host countries. And they gained a source of cheap labor.

Colonialism was spurred by opportunities to import valued items, as well as, unfortunately, slave labor. People rationalized colonialism as improving the lot of natives. Christianity was to solve the problems of the world. In fact, it rationalized exploitation and racism. Conceding that, however, the living conditions of people who were not tribal chiefs or royalty was deplorable. When the colonial system went "bust" in the post WW II era, many, aided by air and fast ocean travel wanted to come. And the West had a high standard of living, as well as a welfare "safety net."

Pre-Congress of Vienna, and post 1914 life in Europe was a mess. What is now the "Third World" was always a mess but its people had no access to or knowledge of the West. Now, the U.S., Europe, Australia and Israel are beleaguered by the waves of people who want something better. However, by and large, they lack the education and/or work ethic needed to succeed in 21st Century society.

"Compassion" dictates throwing open the gates. Common sense dictates ensuring that the influx is manageable and that we get the best people. This, unfortunately, entails policies that most thinking people consider heartless. The tension between people who emphasize "heart" and those who emphasize "head" is enormous and divides people from their friends and colleagues.

Independence in the 1950's and 1960's has come with large amounts of aid. And private help. Think "We Are the World." And the "world" has nothing to show for it. Taxpayers in the more affluent countries cannot be expected to open their homes, hands and hearts endlessly. Perhaps the way to go is large-scale international aid, administered by the West. Sort of like a Peace Corp. on a large scale. We cannot shirk our moral duties to the world. However, for obvious reasons, in doing this we cannot respect the right of kleptocratic leaders to "self-determination."

Immigration has been way down since Obama. I'm not really seeing what the big problem is that needs a solution insofar as 'the wall'. We have farmers having a hard time getting produce to market, despite the fact that there are 12 million undocs in the US. All we are doing is making their lives hell, causing tons of stress, and tons of stress also stresses out the health cares system, since stress causes illness to increase.

I know repubs want to "seal the border", but it can't be sealed, as 50% of undocs are visa overstays, and neither the left or right is going to fund a wall, though they might fund beefing up this and that. It's like crime, you can put a dent in it, but you can never stop it completely and we've but a big dent in it already. Those who think we can stop illegal immigration completely are kidding themselves.

One thing we can do is legalize ALL drugs. This is the solution, I believe, offered by Rand Paul, the libertarian solution. When the crime drops after legalization, then give American Corps incentives to invest in those countries, and increase jobs there. The reason they are coming here from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras is because of threats and murders from drug cartel people in those countries and they can't even earn a living because many shops are being extorted to a point where it's no longer profitable to stay in business so they are empoverished by the cartels.

JBG · Jul 1, 2018

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I respectfully disagree with much of it.

OscarLevant said:
Immigration has been way down since Obama. I'm not really seeing what the big problem is that needs a solution insofar as 'the wall'.

I don't know where they are getting their numbers from. During the first Obama term, that may have been true. We were still in the grip of the recession of 2008-9. By definition we have no numbers on undocs.

OscarLevant said:
We have farmers having a hard time getting produce to market, despite the fact that there are 12 million undocs in the US. All we are doing is making their lives hell, causing tons of stress, and tons of stress also stresses out the health cares system, since stress causes illness to increase.

If we have 12 million undocs, and farmers are having a hard to moving produce, those undocs, if they are working, are not working for farmers. Chances are many are either doing child care for working mothers, elder care, or not working at all. I suspect many of the males fall into that category.

OscarLevant said:
I know repubs want to "seal the border", but it can't be sealed, as 50% of undocs are visa overstays, and neither the left or right is going to fund a wall, though they might fund beefing up this and that. It's like crime, you can put a dent in it, but you can never stop it completely and we've but a big dent in it already. Those who think we can stop illegal immigration completely are kidding themselves.

I agree about Visa overstays. I think we can and should hire more immigration judges and really speed up the process. These can and should be processed like speeding tickets.

OscarLevant said:
One thing we can do is legalize ALL drugs. This is the solution, I believe, offered by Rand Paul, the libertarian solution. When the crime drops after legalization, then give American Corps incentives to invest in those countries, and increase jobs there. The reason they are coming here from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras is because of threats and murders from drug cartel people in those countries and they can't even earn a living because many shops are being extorted to a point where it's no longer profitable to stay in business so they are empoverished by the cartels.

Sounds attractive but the trouble with that is that these drugs are harmful and most users cannot afford the consequences. Query, how do we fund the treatment of users when the experience goes bad?

OscarLevant · Jul 1, 2018

JBG said:
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I respectfully disagree with much of it.I don't know where they are getting their numbers from. During the first Obama term, that may have been true. We were still in the grip of the recession of 2008-9. By definition we have no numbers on undocs.

Immigration is down.

If we have 12 million undocs, and farmers are having a hard to moving produce, those undocs, if they are working, are not working for farmers. Chances are many are either doing child care for working mothers, elder care, or not working at all. I suspect many of the males fall into that category.

Doesn't matter. Farmers are having trouble getting produce to market due to immigration being down. That is the real problem, not the imaginary problem Trump is conning his base into believing.

I agree about Visa overstays. I think we can and should hire more immigration judges and really speed up the process. These can and should be processed like speeding tickets.

It would take thousands of judges, this idea is not viable.

Sounds attractive but the trouble with that is that these drugs are harmful and most users cannot afford the consequences. Query, how do we fund the treatment of users when the experience goes bad?

No, the benefits of legalization far outweigh the costs, on many levels.

A lot of things are harmful and legal. Cigarettes, Alcohol, etc. The only counter argument is 'why have another one'. No, its a civil rights issue. Why do one group get to have their alcohol, but another group who want marijuana do not? If you use alcohol, you have a civic duty not to abuse the privileged, and if you do, you are cited or prosecuted.

No, the cost to society as a whole is vastly reduced. Also, incidences of HIV, VD etc, go down dramatically as well. We have the results of the Portugal experience, which has been mostly positive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

Consequences of legalization result in lower costs to users, including society as a whole, and much less stress, and the cost of drug users committing crimes (burglary, robber, etc ) to support their habit (the prices of drugs of which are much higher due to it being illegal) , incarcerating them, etc., the cost to society goes way way way down, your contention simply is not supported by the facts. We have real world examples of this, i.e, Portugal, Amsterdam, etc.

The cost of treatment to users is offset by the reduced cost of prosecuting drug users, the costs of insurance companies who give awards for loss of stolen goods, etc.

Moreover, resources directed to prosecuting drug users can be redirected to more serious crimes, crimes of violence, which are being unnecessarily usurped by the prosecution of drug users who do not commit violent crimes. In Jessie Venture's book, he explains, noting that he was once a governor, how the judiciary budget goes done by some 15%, which represents millions and more in many states, just by making marijuana illegal.

Not only that, eventually, as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, with drugs being legal, the cartels would no longer have drug money billions and the power that comes with it to hijack the governments in those countries, and those countries governments regain and restore law and order, which will lower immigration problems, and the costs associated with it this is good for America and those countries as well. Moreover, immigrants, once they restore law and order, cannot claim "asylum" as they are doing now.

MrMike · Jul 1, 2018

I see a few problems in the solutions and challenges to stem the problem of illegals.

One, they are here to make money (first) with most being economic refugees (Europe has learned this the hard way). The narrative they are running from violence and qualify for refugee status is applicable to some (who should have applied and followed the legal route), but the majority of illegals here are not and are chasing the dollar.

The employees who hire these illegals and pay them under the table need to be reigned in and treated as harshly as traffickers. This continues to be poorly handled due to the graft in our own government who continue to only pay lip service to it (the e-verify thing is a joke given the bulk of employers of illegals run an "under the table" cash flow to them). In my area, a majority of lawn services, pool services, construction, painters, etc. are not legal residents. Sadly, they take advantage of the illegals (who are unable to get into a legal salary flow) and pay them reduced rates in cash and that in itself is a big part of their game (why they use them).

The left wants to legalize the current crop of illegals (12m or so) here in USA. Okay, say that happens and they are no longer at risk of deportation? Well, the former illegals (now legal) will demand higher salaries and likely be dumped by the folks (above) who liked them in the shadows at reduced payment. Those same former illegals who were dumped will do what? (apply for benefits) further taxing the system, our services, etc. Consequently, what will happen is another wave of illegals will be needed by those businesses and the entire illegal border crossing cycle will start over again as they rebuild their labor pool of lower cost illegal workers who are off the books.

I notice at my local Kroger the service center has a wire transfer service (western union). On Friday and Saturday there is usually a long line of folks standing there cash in hand sending money back to their nation of origin (yes, it's pretty obvious). I suggest there be a x% fee on anyone sending money overseas if they cannot demonstrate any type of legal status to be in USA. We need to remove the benefit of illegals being here, using our system/services, and sending cash back home.

Sounds heartless? Yep... but it needs to be done.

Colonialism v. Immigration v. National Borders v. Compassion – What’s the Solution?

JBG

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire

JBG

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire

MrMike