As for history- we can trace huge incidents of crime to surrounding early European immigrants. Oddly enough- these people were largely excluded from society and lacked opportunity. Yet, interestingly enough many institutions of government, industry, and society come from these immigrant communities. Interestingly enough- as these groups were given opportunity in society we saw the crime rates surrounding these groups fall to levels of the enteral public. It seems, there is a strong correlation between people who don’t have things and a system which makes it difficult for them to legally acquire them and participate in mainstream society- and crime.
All I ask is they have records (preferably clean), some skills or education, enter through legal means, have the ability and desire to support themselves, and actually want to be a part of and contribute to America.
Otherwise, they can be turned around and sent away, or punished for crimes committed against the American people, and then sent away.
While on the surface those all seem like mostly reasonable things, there’s some wiggle in there. As far as entering through legal means... we kinda control that right? I mean- that’s a big part of the problem. If all you had to do was fill out a questionnaire or something and then you were nice and legal- I can’t prove anything but I suspect we’d greatly decrease the number of unlawful immigrations if that was the process right? I’m not saying that simple example is how it should be- but I’m saying that if the difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration is following process, and we make the process...
But, having skills... that’s abstract a bit. Juggling is a skill, being great at cleaning is a skill, making an awesome omelette is a skill- and arguably (maybe less so juggling) these are employable skills. But “your tired, your hungry, your poor” often aren’t doctors or nuclear physicists. And while we do have illegal immigration from “skilled” professionals- and some studies suggest those folks- especially overstaying legal visas- are actually a larger bulk of “illegal immigrants” when these things are discussed, when measures and crack downs occur and people get passionate on both sides- usually we are talking about a lower strata of immigrant that the one that flew in legally to work at Google for $200k and never left.
And well- there’s no way to say it without being exploitive- but it’s somewhat exploitive either way when we talk about letting people in based on what is most beneficial to society- but using immigration solely as a way to fill deficiencies in our work force or “cherry pick” is a little exploitive- but so is saying we will let in only unskilled workers to do menial jobs for cheap rates. But also exploitive but pragmatic- if we only examine benefit to us as opposed to needs or other things...
Which is a better philosophy for Americans, to let in a controlled and created “sub lower class” of what are mostly going to be menial workers who must work up from the “bottom” of society and only risk taking jobs that Americans don’t want or require no skill... or filling in skilled jobs that pay well and American citizens could be trained to do, or already are, and thusly increasing competition for skilled and decent paying jobs? It’s not an either or scenario in reality- but to simplify the matter for examination- we do have to realize that either way has moral and practical implications.
But lastly- and maybe this is me personally- i feel like the criteria you’ve listed are more than we ask of many born citizens. Personally it doesn’t sit well with me for us to say to someone who’s crossed deserts and oceans, often risked death, given up their life and walked away from what they know, their home and family, that they have to prove themselves “worthy” in such ways that someone who just happened to be born here doesn’t have to.
If we are so proud of our country, if we say the standards to be a citizen are XYZ... that there are these burdens to contribute to society and show that you deserve the freedoms and opportunities this country offers... but we don’t make our born citizens meet those standards... that doesn’t quite seem right to me. It’s like going through this rigorous selection criteria and then finding out that mostly everyone else on the team couldn’t make the cut- but they are all someone’s kid or nephew or friend so they got a pass. And personally- that’s a bigger problem in America to me than illegal immigration. Nepotism, generational wealth, inherited privilege and so forth. It isn’t what you know here- it’s who you know.
That’s a rot right there. That is the antithesis of true capitalism. We decry socialism and communism yet- we prop up and protect failures and established elites. Isn’t a major point of capitalism to encourage competition, innovation, to encourage “natural selection.” I mean...
Exploitive? Not a concern in the least. We cannot stop people from having children or being born in the US, but we can control who we allow to visit or stay. Why accept those who will only burden us when we have a hard enough time arguing about how to take care of those already here? We're a nation, not a global welfare organization. Whether someone legally coming and staying is a janitor or executive is also immaterial, they are contributing to us either way, we just need to encourage them to keep their nose clean at that point by holding them to the same standard as any natural born citizen.
You want to hold citizens to a higher standard? Okay. Literacy tests, mandatory service, civics assessment, etc. Is there a proper way to implement some of these? Maybe. You think either of us could ever convince the masses, or even agree ourselves? I doubt it.
And that's not what natural selection means. It's not the weak that die off, simply the most fit that thrive, but that ain't relevant.
Wether we hold people to a higher standard or not is somewhat irrelevant- that we can’t be held to the same standard that we would say is the minimum criteria for citizenship seems a bit flawed no? If we are not a global welfare organization than why are people our “problem” just because they are born here any more than they’d be our problem just because they happen to be here- however they got here? Either way a boon is a boon and a problem is a problem no?
I specifically said we have a system that prevents people from competing who could do better, while propping up those who wouldn’t be where they are on their own merits.
We can't have people who are citizens of nowhere. We can't just cart off every baby born to a different place until they earn their keep. There's no accounting for luck. I was lucky enough to be born to a stable family in the United States about to get hit by economic and military crisis, some people were lucky enough to be born a girl in one-child China, others still are lucky enough to be born in Vietnam while economic opportunity is climbing ever higher but working conditions can be questionable or horrendous as often as not. You're born in Russia? Congrats, you're Russian.
We can't exactly Starship Troopers in real life without pissing off enough people that the system would, at best, fall through.
The best we can do is accept those who are born here, and tighten up on who we allow to come in.
Ah yes. Is this only directed at wealthy elites who speak their minds- or is this implying we should associate such liberal views with people who don’t know what they are talking about? Interestingly enough it appears to be written strictly from a conservative point of view- we don’t really hear about the rich conservatives out of touch with the common man who advocate policy that doesn’t affect them, or in many cases specifically serves their interests... people who likely never have had to rely on welfare or public works to provide and can pay for their needs easily themselves and do t require help...
But that doesn’t explain why people who live in immigrant rich communities often advocate for immigrants? Places like the SF Bay Area- which got its liberal reputation during its hey day as a blue collar working class area and not the yuppie pot it is known as today. But it doesn’t fit the narrative to say that middle class people who live and work with immigrants ingrained in their lives and appreciate the things they bring to the community, would support immigration does it?
Oddly- California- a state with a major border and sea access to Mexico and a large diverse population of immigrants from all over the world, legal and otherwise, is a “sanctuary state.” Despite the fact that everyone thinks of Los Angeles or the SF bay as the state without realizing the state is the size of the eastern sea board and the majority of it is farm land and rural areas... it’s major cities aren’t full of isolated communities but apartments and condos where people making 6 figures live in complexes with people on government assistance housing....
You means those cities where needles litter the street, human shit is a regular slipping hazard, and they don't respond to car break ins, burglaries, or even keep the ones they do catch long enough to be booked? Great example there.
I’ve been to San Fran, LA, and San Diego. I’ve never seen what you describe. I can only assume that is in small specific areas just like every city of a certain size predictably have.
Yeah... I mean this in a very gentle way, but I think you might need to get out more. I’ve lived in major cities, I’ve lived in towns with populations below 10,000. People made I big deal when I was younger about how bad city kids were- but the things those rural kids got up to with the wide open spaces and relative freedom from prying eyes they had outside of town? Much worse I’d say. In a city of millions, if even a fraction of a percent are hard drug users you’ll have a big number- but go to countless small towns where you have small populations, you aren’t going to have 100,000 druggies in a town of 30,000- but you could easily have 20% or more of the town be tweakers. It’s all relative, but people raise families in these places, live in these places- they aren’t mad max hell holes or even 70’s NYC or 80’s/90’s parts of LA. I’ve stumbled on needles in my big city life but it’s hardly epidemic in my experience, and often it’s specific areas.
Another thing you have to consider as well when talking about a lot of these areas- especially on the west coast- homelessness is a year round thing. LA it barely ever rains. It gets hot- but not as hot as back east in general- and lots of shade if you know where to look. SF is damp- but the climate is more Mediterranean. You have a much lower risk of dying from exposure even at the extremes of weather than you do in many other places. So that tends to make these cities naturally attract homeless people. There’s lots of waste- food waste and people throw out or give away nice clothing and other things. Lots of new faces all the time, lots of chances to pan handle and so on. So it isn’t necessarily that these cities specifically create homelessness (although the high rents contribute) it’s that people often come to those places when homeless because they offer plenty of benefits of you are homeless.
And you are more likely to see the homeless, all year, because they don’t have to go into deep hiding when the weather gets shitty since the weather tends to be nice.
Otherwise, they can be turned around and sent away, or punished for crimes committed against the American people, and then sent away.
You want to hold citizens to a higher standard? Okay. Literacy tests, mandatory service, civics assessment, etc. Is there a proper way to implement some of these? Maybe. You think either of us could ever convince the masses, or even agree ourselves? I doubt it.
And that's not what natural selection means. It's not the weak that die off, simply the most fit that thrive, but that ain't relevant.
We can't exactly Starship Troopers in real life without pissing off enough people that the system would, at best, fall through.
The best we can do is accept those who are born here, and tighten up on who we allow to come in.