Why do you oppose immigration?

[Marc_Anthony]

What? Immigrants are actually socially conservative as they opposed gay marriage and abortion, but it is in their economic interest to vote for redistributive economic policies. If one is able to distill social conservatism from a solution of economic conservatism, they would vote against gay marriage and abortion on individual ballot propositions. But in this case, social issues MUST be separated from economic issues.

There is little difference. Economic liberals are normally also social liberals.

Besids, I also happen to be economically conservative.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Why do you consider it to be purely self-interest to expect people to obey the law? Do you think you should be allowed to break the law with impunity? Or are you saying that just this particular set of laws (immigration laws) should be broken at will?

I agree.

 

[Black_Rose]

Why do you consider it to be purely self-interest to expect people to obey the law? Do you think you should be allowed to break the law with impunity? Or are you saying that just this particular set of laws (immigration laws) should be broken at will?

But why should there be a law on immigration? Saying that it is the law is meaningless because it does not provide a justification for it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Uh oh, I should clear up something in my last post.

I was NOT implying that the immigrants were socially liberal, more that the politicians they vote for are socially liberal.

Just to clarify.

 

[texasnan]

But why should there be a law on immigration? Saying that it is the law is meaningless because it does not provide a justification for it.

So, if you don’t agree with a law, it’s OK for everybody to break it. Gotcha.

 

[HauntedJame]

I am for immigration, as long as the immigrants have skills that are needed. Foreign language teachers, doctors, you name it…if it is needed and they aren’t serial killers, I am quite happy. Wouldn’t be here if immigration was a no-no! Both my parents emmigrated from Europe…

James
I find some of what you teach suspect because I’m used to relying on my intellect but I try to open up to what I don’t know

 

[St_Francis]

But why should there be a law on immigration? Saying that it is the law is meaningless because it does not provide a justification for it.

On the first page of this thread, I provided reasons for having immigration laws: 1. to keep criminals out; 2. to keep people with antibiotic-resistant and other infectious diseases out.

In addition, we should regulate those who come in so that we do not have a lot of people who are unable to maintain themselves and so would quickly become a charge on the public welfare system, unless there is another compelling reason to allow them in (in which case, we should also provide some sort of system to help them).

I think we should also be careful about the skills those entering the country have; for example, I understand few Americans are hired for software development because the companies get Indians on 3-year visas who will work for much less. OTOH, I think that some sort of leveling out should occur so that we aren’t recruiting very poor, uneducated people to do our “dirty work” for us at rates which do not allow them to sustain a reasonable life (ie, pay rent at a level which would allow them to abide by occupancy laws).

And at the rate things are going in this country, I think we should only allow equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats in.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Well, in the first post of this thread, you said that you thought that people who were against immigration were self-serving, but you seem blind to the self-serving aspects of voting for income redistribution from the “rich” to the poor by poor people.

And you don’t seem to think that maybe that type of self-serving attitude might not affect those who are against immigration, the vast majority of which is of poor people?

Good point.

Again—no one is against ‘immigration.’ Some of us are dead set against illegal aliens.

The two terms do not equate, any more than the word ‘choice’ means what it actually is—the murder of unborn babies.

I am beginning to wonder whether this isn’t one of those ‘Why-does-the-Church-hate-women-and-homosexuals’ threads.

 

[Desertsailor]

Of course, I except most people’s opposition to immigration (or illegal immigration) to be mainly motivated by self-interest, instead of a through consideration of the common good. People would, of course, try to veil their self-interest by appealing to a version of morality by interpreting it in a fashion that would be in agreement with their interests.

I expressed my own views about it elsewhere, and they would be quite surprising to many.

Regardless of the actually motivations, I am interest enough to take a few minutes post a thread asking about people’s justifications for their position on immigration.

I’ll close with a quotation from Kevin MacDonald that is very controversial and frank:

“People opposed to immigration, they talk about economic problems and this and that. No one simply says “Europeans are not going to benefit from this as a group” that we are giving up control of our country to other peoples.”

1. No one is opposed to immigration.
2. Everyone should be opposed to illegal immigration.
3. Coyotes who bring poor people to the US from Mexico are also drug and arms dealers. They leave these people in the desert to die of exposure, rob them, murder them, rape them, and sell some of them into slavery. Yes, I said slavery; right here in the US.

 

[mary_bobo]

I reject the premise and inference in the question. A lot of assuming here.

 

[Contarini]

Immigration is great - it allowed us to actually create an entire nation of immigrants. What’s not to love? My own husband immigrated here from England, and my great grand parents from Eastern Europe.


Illegal anything is unacceptable. I don’t care if it’s immigration, j-walking, or robbery.

~Liza

First of all, I want to dissociate myself from the OP’s confusion of opposition to illegal immigration and opposition to immigration. I think the OP may be European, and there is a lot more actual opposition to immigration in Europe than in the U.S. Myself, I would take a very different stance in the European context than in the American context (I’m a British citizen but have lived in the U.S. most of my life), precisely for the reason you give–immigration is central to the identity of the United States. And Americans generally recognize that. Many folks want limitations on immigration, and this position naturally overlaps with opposition to illegal immigration. But not everyone opposed to illegal immigration wants to limit legal immigration, and practically no Americans are simply opposed to immigration.

That being said: I think your last sentence illustrates what is basically wrong with the “anti-illegal-immigration” position. You ought to care about the intrinsic conformity to natural law of an action. Yes indeed, we should respect civil law whenever it does not violate natural law. But civil law derives its authority from natural law.

Your position sounds like that of Protestants who think “all sins are equal.” And it stems from the same basic error–the idea that a “law” is some kind of arbitrary rule made up by a superior authority (whether God or a national government), rather than a reflection of the eternal law which is identical with God’s nature.

Edwin

 

[ishii]

I reject the premise and inference in the question. A lot of assuming here.

I do to. This is one of those “when did you stop beating your wife” type of questions. However, I will answer. I am for immigration as long as it is legal, orderly, and good for the country. I think that immigration can actually help and bring new energy to a country. That said, unfettered, illegal immigration is a bad thing as it overloads our infrastructure and sets a precedent for breaking the law.

That said, I love the Catholic culture of many of our immigrants (illegal and otherwise) of our brothers and sisters who come here from south of the border. 30 years ago you didn’t see statues of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the local grocery store, now you do. But I suppose thats irrelevant to the issue. Or is it? Who would you want coming into America, (legally) - those who buy statues of Our Lady of Guadalupe, or those who think their religion requires their women to cover 99% percent of their body?

Ishii

 

[Black_Rose]

First of all, I want to dissociate myself from the OP’s confusion of opposition to illegal immigration and opposition to immigration.

Edwin

I do not want to make that distinction because I wanted to detach the notion of legality from morality in whatever discussion may arise from the thread. In hindsight, I should have predicted that people will continue to use this justification for their views on immigration. In this thread, I wanted people to avoid invoking the legality of immigration in their reasoning to defend their views.

 

[ishii]

I do not want to make that distinction because I wanted to detach the notion of legality from morality in whatever discussion may arise from the thread. In hindsight, I should have predicted that people will continue to use this justification for their views on immigration. In this thread, I wanted people to avoid invoking the legality of immigration in their reasoning to defend their views.

But you can’t ignore the legal questions that deal with the issue. Further, your question is misleading as it seems to imply that all of those who favor a stricter approach to dealing with illegal immigration are somehow opposed to*** legal immigration ***and that simply is not true.

Ishii

 

[JulieAA]

I do not want to make that distinction because I wanted to detach the notion of legality from morality in whatever discussion may arise from the thread. In hindsight, I should have predicted that people will continue to use this justification for their views on immigration. In this thread, I wanted people to avoid invoking the legality of immigration in their reasoning to defend their views.

How is that done, with all due respect.

 

[Black_Rose]

How is that done, with all due respect.

I posted an example of one person’s (Kevin MacDonald) honest and open views about immigration without hiding behind the facade of its legality. He simply says it would not benefit European people without any fear of being labeled politically incorrect, racist, or a xenophobe.

youtube.com/watch?v=mCSeSOVCfkk

It is worth listening to the entire video if one has ten minutes.

 

[vz71]

I do not want to make that distinction because I wanted to detach the notion of legality from morality in whatever discussion may arise from the thread. In hindsight, I should have predicted that people will continue to use this justification for their views on immigration. In this thread, I wanted people to avoid invoking the legality of immigration in their reasoning to defend their views.

I doubt you will find anyone in this forum with any significant objection to immigration.

However you will likely find many that have serious objections to criminal behavior.

Perhaps you should reword the initial question.

 

[St_Francis]

I posted an example of one person’s (Kevin MacDonald) honest and open views about immigration without hiding behind the facade of its legality. He simply says it would not benefit European people without any fear of being labeled politically incorrect, racist, or a xenophobe.

youtube.com/watch?v=mCSeSOVCfkk

It is worth listening to the entire video if one has ten minutes.

Are you indeed from Europe or outside the US? Were you looking for answers more reflective of the European situation, which does indeed differ greatly from the US situation?

 

[Black_Rose]

Are you indeed from Europe or outside the US? Were you looking for answers more reflective of the European situation, which does indeed differ greatly from the US situation?

I posted my own views about immigration elsewhere and hinted to my own views on this thread. Does Kevin MacDonald think the US situation reflects that of Europe?

 

[texasnan]

I do not want to make that distinction because I wanted to detach the notion of legality from morality in whatever discussion may arise from the thread. In hindsight, I should have predicted that people will continue to use this justification for their views on immigration. In this thread, I wanted people to avoid invoking the legality of immigration in their reasoning to defend their views.

That’s ridiculous. It’s perfectly reasonable to support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. Perhaps you don’t intend to, but you’re coming across as very arrogant – “I know more about what you think than you do.”