• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is immigration considered an obligation of a country?

I'd argue that if a person or group of people face certain death in the home countries---not just looking for better working conditions, but as in "they and their families will die if they stay" then a country has a moral obligation to take them in, so long as it's through legal channels.

Part of the reason Hitler eventually turned to the idea of killing all the Jews, instead of just stealing their stuff and kicking them out, was because nobody wanted to take that many immigrants, especially of a different faith.

At what point does this come into effect? Do we allow it for people who just live in poor conditions? How many do we allow and what do we do if there is no practical way to vet them? At what point do we draw the line?
 
If they only exist in my imagination then why is there always a large amount of outrage at any attempts to reduce immigration?

Yes. And I would be one of those people outraged.
 
At what point does this come into effect? Do we allow it for people who just live in poor conditions? How many do we allow and what do we do if there is no practical way to vet them? At what point do we draw the line?

But there is a practical way to vet them. Until we invent a way to read people's minds, there's no 100% surety; but we have very strict vetting processes.

An example would be the Yazidis in Iraq. But you don't have to take in every single member of a group either.
 
But there is a practical way to vet them. Until we invent a way to read people's minds, there's no 100% surety; but we have very strict vetting processes.

An example would be the Yazidis in Iraq. But you don't have to take in every single member of a group either.

Why take any Yazidis? If any, why not all?
 
So you missed the part where I mentioned ILLEGAL immigration. I am for the rule of law, I also know that we are a land made up of immigrants. Without immigrants, we would not be here.

Cool. I am happy. Now what?

Are you saying that because 300,000,000 million are immigrants or their off-springs, those already here owe anything to those who are not?
 
And the march to the suicide cliff goes on...

1,037 Syrian Refugees Admitted in May: Two Christians, 1,035 Muslims

Illegal immigration has exploded 57 percent in less than two years, with at least 550,000 new undocumented aliens pouring into America in a trend that is set to continue growing, according to new Census data.

In an analysis of the numbers, the Center for Immigration Studies found illegal and legal immigration have reached over 1.5 million a year, a new 15 year high, and a 39 percent increase over 2013.

And then this:

 
Why take any Yazidis? If any, why not all?

Because groups like ISIS and other Islamic radical terrorist organizations are trying to wipe them out, because they think the Yazidis are devil worshippers. Which their not, but the radicals don't care.

Taking in Yazidis would also bypass the concerns that immigrants might be working with terrorists like some people claim.
 
Because groups like ISIS and other Islamic radical terrorist organizations are trying to wipe them out, because they think the Yazidis are devil worshippers. Which their not, but the radicals don't care.

Taking in Yazidis would also bypass the concerns that immigrants might be working with terrorists like some people claim.

This is not how it's supposed to work. Once they are out of danger, any country is as good.

Why us? Because this is where the naive do-gooders are at the ready to put them on welfare.

Or do you already have well-paying jobs waiting for them?
 
I've been puzzling over this concept. There seems to be a significant number of people who believe that immigration is a right of some sorts. Why?
Immigration isn't a right. It's a political reality, and immigrants -- legal or illegal -- are entitled to certain rights when they cross the border. E.g. anyone suspected of illegally crossing a border still has the right to due process.

Refugees have the right to escape conflicts, and nations often honor that with an asylum system.


Why does a country even have to let a single immigrant in? As far as the U.S., we already have a ton of diversity so it's not like we are struggling on that end.
In case you missed it, everyone who isn't Native American is an immigrant. We are a nation of immigrants. We have made a choice to make our borders relatively (but not absolutely) open.

As such, it's more a virtue than an obligation.

From a practical perspective, it's going to happen as long as our economy is better than other economies. It's also economically beneficial in all sorts of ways. As such, it's both virtuous and practically beneficial, but not an obligation.


We keep hearing about people complaining about stagnant wages but we grow our population via immigration when we could reduce it. If you want an easy way to increase wages, shrink the labor pool so employers have to fight over hiring people vice 50 people applying for the same job and the one who makes it is thankful to be getting a paycheck at all.
Incorrect.

Wages aren't stagnant in the US because immigrants are coming to the US. It's mostly because of automation and foreign competition. The types of jobs most immigrants take in the US are already very low pay -- low-level agriculture, restaurant work, domestic (i.e. maids/cleaners), garment manufacturing. Even among critics of immigration, they suggest all it does is reduce wages of some high school grads by 3-5%.

Plus: If the immigrants weren't coming to the US to work for those low wages, then those jobs would relocate to where labor is cheap.

Meanwhile, the influx of workers also means more consumers. You have more people who are buying goods, renting apartments, buying and driving cars, eating food, paying taxes and so forth. Even with remittances, overall immigration is beneficial for the economy. This is especially useful when those immigrants are younger, which means they pay into Social Security at a time when we need more people paying in.

(Some more info on the economics: Does Immigration Suppress Wages? It?s Not So Simple - Real Time Economics - WSJ)


Why is a country considered horrible if they just don't do immigration?
The "horror" isn't in restricting immigration. It is:

• Treating immigrants like they are subhuman
• Depriving immigrants of other rights, such as due process
• Racist and/or xenophobic objections by some to immigration

E.g. it's not horrifying to suggest that we should limit the US to 1 million or 2 million legal immigrants per year. It is horrifying to vilify all Muslims, and insist that "no Muslims should be allowed to enter the US under any circumstances."
 
In case you missed it, everyone who isn't Native American is an immigrant.

What a load of grade school pablum.

"Immigrant" has its legal definition. Either you are an immigrant or you are not. Period.

I am because I was born outside the U.S. When I turned 24, I properly applied to become an immigrant at the U.S. Consulate in the Netherlands. I became an immigrant when I stepped on the U.S. soil at Kennedy. As a confirmation of my legal status I was given my "green card'.

Anyone born here is not an immigrant and is never given a "green card".

Those who crossed the border illegally are not immigrants. They are criminal aliens.

Good lord! Why does it take an immigrant to explain what "immigrant" means?
 
Last edited:
..it's not horrifying to suggest that we should limit the US to 1 million or 2 million legal immigrants per year. It is horrifying to vilify all Muslims, and insist that "no Muslims should be allowed to enter the US under any circumstances."

It's not horrifying to suggest that we should limit immigration to 100 per year to Ph. D. or better.

It's not horrifying to suggest that we should keep Muslims where they are and be free of Islamophobia.
 
But there is a practical way to vet them. Until we invent a way to read people's minds, there's no 100% surety; but we have very strict vetting processes.

An example would be the Yazidis in Iraq. But you don't have to take in every single member of a group either.

What are these "strict vetting processes"? It's my understanding that the FBI has made clear that there is no way to know whether an alien being admitted here from Syria is a jihadist. That conclusion is supported by the fact Tashfeen Malik, the Pakistani who was an accomplice in the murders in San Bernardino last December, managed to be admitted to the U.S. despite good evidence she supported jihadist violence.

Of course none of this bothers the run-of-the-mill leftist know-nothing, who, like his disgraceful president, resents the U.S. and does not wish it well. A shared antipathy toward this country makes these specimens willing apologists for the Islamic jihadists. Andy McCarthy documented this unholy alliance in "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."
 
What are these "strict vetting processes"? It's my understanding that the FBI has made clear that there is no way to know whether an alien being admitted here from Syria is a jihadist. That conclusion is supported by the fact Tashfeen Malik, the Pakistani who was an accomplice in the murders in San Bernardino last December, managed to be admitted to the U.S. despite good evidence she supported jihadist violence.

Of course none of this bothers the run-of-the-mill leftist know-nothing, who, like his disgraceful president, resents the U.S. and does not wish it well. A shared antipathy toward this country makes these specimens willing apologists for the Islamic jihadists. Andy McCarthy documented this unholy alliance in "The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America."

Man, I ****ing hate politics.

President Obama is the president of the United States, for a while yet. As president of the United States, he deserves a certain amount of respect. The position, if nothing else, demands it. He is not a disgrace; he is not a socialist Marxist Muslim atheist who plans to destroy America; he is the president of the United States of America, a man in a very difficult job, and he's doing the best he can.

As I stated early, until somebody invents a machine which reads minds, there's no way to know 100. But in America, one of our key principles is "innocent until proven guilty".
 
This is not how it's supposed to work. Once they are out of danger, any country is as good.

Why us? Because this is where the naive do-gooders are at the ready to put them on welfare.

Or do you already have well-paying jobs waiting for them?

No, because America has acquired a reputation over the years as the promised land. Our whole shtick is that supposedly, anyone who comes here can create a better life for themselves; can keep their family safe and not have to worry about crime and violence and discrimination; can live in peace.

Any country isn't as good as any other country. Hungary isn't as good as Austria isn't as good as Germany isn't as good as.... it goes on and on down the line.
 
I'll skip sharing the brilliant, deep thoughts when it comes to the theories or the legalese of immigration (joke) -- My thoughts here only stem from my belief that I am a worldly person and also take immense joy in traveling the world, interacting with people of different backgrounds, and getting to have fascinating multicultural experiences. There's nothing like getting lost in Paris; or eating at a Hawker market in Singapore until you can't move. Or clubbing in Mexico City with people who speak a different language, or beaching on the Gold Coast in Australia. I live for that type of stuff. Which is what an open and travel-able world has allowed me to do.

I'd like to have that type of world continue. Even more so too. I want to have a world that does not segregate itself based on artificial identities and does not place sovereignty over an individual's ability to travel, work or live where she pleases. I enjoy being empowered to chose my own happiness, and I don't want to be restricted to a the square plot of soil that I happened to be born upon.

So obvious that leads me to being very super pro-immigration.

I'm not saying close down borders to recreational travel. I'm saying close down immigration and workers' visas. As far as artificial identities...these identities exist, whether we have borders or not. You also have to have some controls, or you lose control. Just look how unmitigated immigration worked out for the Native Americans.

That would be a very bad decision. The world is much more interconnected than I think most people realize. Severing ourselves (Americans) from the course of the world kills that inter-connectivity and deprives us of all of the wealth and human capital that 6.8 billion people have to offer that is not found in just 4% of the population.

We shut our doors and we end up backwards and surpassed by the rest of the world.

Again, we don't shut our doors. We would still have world trade and travel (I actually believe in trade with everyone to include Iran and Cuba and such). I think you're misunderstanding my point in meaning that we should close ourselves off like North Korea or something.
 
Immigration isn't a right. It's a political reality, and immigrants -- legal or illegal -- are entitled to certain rights when they cross the border. E.g. anyone suspected of illegally crossing a border still has the right to due process.

The citizens of this country have the right to punish people breaking our laws. Citizens of this country have the right to determine who will be allowed into this country. Criminals with no respect for our laws entering this country illegally need to be punished and deported. The punishment should be loss of the chance to ever immigrate to this country. We have enough criminals in this country we do not need to import them.

Refugees have the right to escape conflicts, and nations often honor that with an asylum system.

I have no problem granting temporary asylum to refugees. However, temporary asylum is not immigration.

In case you missed it, everyone who isn't Native American is an immigrant.

False. Everyone migrated to this country.

We have made a choice to make our borders relatively (but not absolutely) open.

That does not give criminals the right to break our laws and circumvent our immigration policy. People who break our laws and enter illegally are the very people we do not want in this country.

Plus: If the immigrants weren't coming to the US to work for those low wages, then those jobs would relocate to where labor is cheap.

Wrong. The rich would be forced to pay decent wages for yard work, maids, and such. Everyone deserves a fair wage for a hard days work. I for one are more than willing to pay a little bit more to end slave labor in this country. Plus if they were paid a fair wage they would not need government subsidies and would also buy more goods and services. Paying people a fair wage is the right thing to do period. It is a win for everyone. Even the greedy rich will have more people buying their products, goods, and services.

Meanwhile, the influx of workers also means more consumers. You have more people who are buying goods, renting apartments, buying and driving cars, eating food, paying taxes and so forth. Even with remittances, overall immigration is beneficial for the economy. This is especially useful when those immigrants are younger, which means they pay into Social Security at a time when we need more people paying in.

Legal immigration has always been good for this country. Criminals, gang members, terrorist, drug dealers, and such are not. Without a secure border and responsible immigration system a great thing becomes a cancer.





The "horror" isn't in restricting immigration. It is:

• Treating immigrants like they are subhuman
• Depriving immigrants of other rights, such as due process
• Racist and/or xenophobic objections by some to immigration

E.g. it's not horrifying to suggest that we should limit the US to 1 million or 2 million legal immigrants per year. It is horrifying to vilify all Muslims, and insist that "no Muslims should be allowed to enter the US under any circumstances."

Correct. I agree completely. However people who enter this country illegally are not immigrants they are criminals with no respect for our laws. These criminals should not be given the respect legal immigrants deserve. They should be punished and removed from this country.
 
Last edited:
I've been puzzling over this concept. There seems to be a significant number of people who believe that immigration is a right of some sorts. Why? Why does a country even have to let a single immigrant in? As far as the U.S., we already have a ton of diversity so it's not like we are struggling on that end.

We keep hearing about people complaining about stagnant wages but we grow our population via immigration when we could reduce it. If you want an easy way to increase wages, shrink the labor pool so employers have to fight over hiring people vice 50 people applying for the same job and the one who makes it is thankful to be getting a paycheck at all.

Obviously, there are times when immigration is advantageous but there is never a time when it would be good to have totally open immigration but that's besides the point.

Why is a country considered horrible if they just don't do immigration? Any POVs from the super pro immigration people out there that have defined thoughts on this?

Confessing I did not read the entire thread so this may be repetitious.

IMO the ONLY reason to allow immigration is to bring in people that are NEEDED for our own economy. That means that all who come as immigrants on a path to citizenship will enter legally and will have a sponsor and a job waiting for them. There can be a few other humanitarian reasons such as allowing a person to bring his/her non-citizen spouse or child here, but not the whole family including parents, inlaws, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, and shirttail relatives such as is the case under current lenient policies. Anyone admitted on a path to citizenship should be able to complete the requirements for citizenship and be sworn in say within 2 or 3 years of admission. If they turn out to be undesirables during that time they can be deported.

In ALL cases, new immigrants should pledge allegiance to our flag and Constitution, should learn sufficient English that all government business can be done in English making forms and instructions in more than one language unnecessary. They should learn and obey our laws and not expect to change our existing culture into whatever it was they left behind.

In cases of high unemployment and resulting low wages, the immigration gate should be kept closed.
 
What our government won't tell us because they consider us too stupid to understand is that we depend on growth, and growth requires consumers, preferably those buying houses, cars, getting married, having kids. We need their high spending rate to afford the retirements and the government.

This why the borders are open. Young, hard working Mexicans popping out children while dad works nights,days, weekends, trying to keep up with the family spending curve. To what end? To raise more taxpayers who get married, have children, and consume as if there is no tomorrow.

We (our leaders) are hooked on a demographic drug.

In some senses, yes. But high rates of unemployment or underemployment are also significantly detrimental as well. I mean, some states don't even let people pump their own gas, just to create some jobs. As far as Mexicans working these hard jobs, I believe if they need to be here legally. Illegal immigrants down pay into the system like legal ones do, so the tax money isn't helped on that account, and a lot of times they send their money home (which is capital leaving our country). Also illegal immigrants get taken advantage of by low pay and other criminal activities because they won't go to officials out of fear of being deported.

 
Yes. Not a "right" exactly, but a part of what "significant number of people" see as the meaning of America. There is this notion that individual people should not be subjected to force by government (or any entity) unless they harm others. Free movement of capital, goods and people is a natural corollary. Unlike most other countries, ours was founded not on ethnic, religious or territorial commonality, but on adherence to certain principles, of which individual freedom of choice is central. The USA is a fairly unique jurisdiction that did not even have any limitations on immigration for the first hundred years of its existence (until the thuggish unions pushed through the Chinese Exclusion bill).

It is quite ironic that nativists consider themselves super-patriots, while in reality they clamor for turning America into just another socialist nation-state with closed borders, restricted trade and - apparently - a psychotic jerk in the White House.

(Immigration also brings enormous economic and cultural benefits, of course, but that's another issue).

Any level of government is going to entail a certain amount of force. Furthermore, limiting who comes into the country is not limiting the rights of anyone that is an actual citizen. There is no right to immigration, as far as I'm tracking. Additionally, unmitigated mass migration causes very real problems, no matter how idealistic someone tries to be.
 
No, because America has acquired a reputation over the years as the promised land. Our whole shtick is that supposedly, anyone who comes here can create a better life for themselves; can keep their family safe and not have to worry about crime and violence and discrimination; can live in peace.

Any country isn't as good as any other country. Hungary isn't as good as Austria isn't as good as Germany isn't as good as.... it goes on and on down the line.

I am amazed how Americans like grade school pablum as a replacement for common sense and the concept of cost and benefit.

But, hey, if you want to play charity games, it's fine with me. But it takes a certain mental dysfunction to be charitable with borrowed money.

Just in case you forgot, the U.S. is broke and immigrants consume more in government services and welfare than they produce in taxes. So, the missing part is yours to pay.

I hope it feels good.
 
Yeah sure - it's not important or really right. East Berlin can tell you all about the reasons why not, and so can S. Korea, Japan and other countries that resist an influx of new citizens.

It's a sign of good faith, really: allowing freedom for citizens and others to choose to live there or not. When they choose you, it says a lot of positives about you. And if you can support an immigrant population, it means your country is stronger.

When a country begins to buckle down on immigration it's usually a sign that there's actual trouble with the populous or other issue. It's not a GOOD thing, per say.

Right, but we currently do not lack for workers. We lack for enough jobs for workers. I wouldn't mind immigration being opened up to meet various demands in the future, I just don't think that it's advantageous at this time.
 
Any level of government is going to entail a certain amount of force. Furthermore, limiting who comes into the country is not limiting the rights of anyone that is an actual citizen. There is no right to immigration, as far as I'm tracking. Additionally, unmitigated mass migration causes very real problems, no matter how idealistic someone tries to be.

Like over hundred languages spoken in some school districts.

BTW, it's almost a daily occurrence for me to ask "do you speak English".

This sick experiment will not end well. Yugoslavia anyone?
 
I am amazed how Americans like grade school pablum as a replacement for common sense and the concept of cost and benefit.

But, hey, if you want to play charity games, it's fine with me. But it takes a certain mental dysfunction to be charitable with borrowed money.

Just in case you forgot, the U.S. is broke and immigrants consume more in government services and welfare than they produce in taxes. So, the missing part is yours to pay.

I hope it feels good.

"Legal" immigrants like you? Or illegal immigrants?
 
more importantly, why do you have the right to tell other people they cant come to america because you got here first?

The existence of government, at any level, necessarily results in people being told what to do in certain areas. Furthermore, what obligation does one country have to the citizens of another country? You're asking the question backwards. Any nation in existence has a vested interest in maintaining it's economy, security, and it's people. Not controlling your borders touches on all of those things.

human migration has existed for tens of thousands of years, and its not going to stop just because you dont like the color of new immigrants, I really despise people who say they hate "illegal immigration" when everyone knows they just hate mexicans. If we were seeing massive amounts of immigrants from scandinavia the right wing wouldn't care, it wouldnt even make the news much less become the fake political issue it is today

First of all, you can take your "you don't like the color of new immigrants" and shove it. I don't care where the immigrants are coming from, or what color they are. What part of "all immigration" is hard to understand. I will not let the strategy of people who have little to no information about someone using disgusting terms or accusations of racism stand. All you've done is proven you've nothing intelligent to base your position on so you fall back on your comfy little "you're a racist" mantra.
 
Back
Top Bottom