The moral highground of the "Illegal" Immigrant - Political Forum

baxter · 03-17-2008, 09:45 AM

Knowing this forum a little bit, I know that the majority of the people here are republicans, so this may be a useless thread but I'll try anyway.

The arguments I'm going to make is that all immigrants to the United States have a moral, while not legal, advantage over the American people. To explain this I'm going to make and analogy: Imagine that population of the United States shrank to 100 people, who through highly sophisticated technology could stop anyone from coming in, it would be fair to try and break in and make use of all this unused land that could not be used because of the very few people. Now if you look at the population of the US and it's density per square mile, it is way below that of the world average. So the American population is in a way the same as this small group of people trying to keep people off their land even though everywhere else people are cramming together. To give you an idea, the US population density is about 30/km², the UK is at 246, France 110, Spain 89, Japan 339: All of these countries are world power and have consistent economic growth, they are not "running out of jobs", despite the fact their population densities are all well over double, some over ten times the US density.

So after reading this, do you still think that all the problems, debt, unemployment all come from the fact that there are too many people in the US, or could it be something else, totally disconnected from immigration?
Could Illegal immigration to the US be therefore justified?

Caltex · 03-17-2008, 09:51 AM

Our land, our right to decide who can live on it. I personally don't want to be over populated like Japan. Having wide open countrysides is also a big plus.

baxter · 03-17-2008, 10:00 AM

The debate is not whether or not you like the countryside but whether we are allowed to claim a part of the Earth and simply stop people from coming there even though it is disrupting the overall distribution of the population on our planet.

Calvin-X · 03-17-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baxter

The debate is not whether or not you like the countryside but whether we are allowed to claim a part of the Earth and simply stop people from coming there even though it is disrupting the overall distribution of the population on our planet.

Yes. THat is what national sovereignty is.

baxter · 03-17-2008, 10:55 AM

So you believe national sovereignty goes above all else?

Calvin-X · 03-17-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baxter

So you believe national sovereignty goes above all else?

It certainly trumps the desire of foreign nationals to come to our nation without our permission.

The Lying Dutchman · 03-17-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baxter

So you believe national sovereignty goes above all else?

it doesnt go above else, but it is the way the world of today was given shape, and its unlikely to see a change in this anytime soon.

dahermit · 03-17-2008, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baxter

Knowing this forum a little bit, I know that the majority of the people here are republicans, so this may be a useless thread but I'll try anyway.

The arguments I'm going to make is that all immigrants to the United States have a moral, while not legal, advantage over the American people. To explain this I'm going to make and analogy: Imagine that population of the United States shrank to 100 people, who through highly sophisticated technology could stop anyone from coming in, it would be fair to try and break in and make use of all this unused land that could not be used because of the very few people. Now if you look at the population of the US and it's density per square mile, it is way below that of the world average. So the American population is in a way the same as this small group of people trying to keep people off their land even though everywhere else people are cramming together. To give you an idea, the US population density is about 30/km², the UK is at 246, France 110, Spain 89, Japan 339: All of these countries are world power and have consistent economic growth, they are not "running out of jobs", despite the fact their population densities are all well over double, some over ten times the US density.

So after reading this, do you still think that all the problems, debt, unemployment all come from the fact that there are too many people in the US, or could it be something else, totally disconnected from immigration?
Could Illegal immigration to the US be therefore justified?

What do you think the "quality" of living in Japan is compared to Spain. Consider Japan's people living nose to butt, while in Spain there are open plains, unpopulated scenic mountains, rivers, lakes, etc. Which is "better"?

There is a lot of vacant land I will give you for illegal immigarnts...they can have all of Death Valley; miles and miles of prime real estate.

By the way, I am not a Republican. I am a raging pro-second amendment socialist.

baxter · 03-21-2008, 04:36 PM

Quote:

raging pro-second amendment socialist

Isn't that an oxymoron? Just to remind you, socialism is also internationalism so theoretically you should agree with me, but still...

Anyway, my point is obviously a little too philosophical and theoretical for you guys, kind of figured that out with answers like:

Quote:

Our land, our right to decide who can live on it.

Just an attempt, didn't work but happy to have tried.

The Lying Dutchman · 03-21-2008, 04:54 PM

its just that your statement that immigration has no effect at all is not agreed on. it is quite a logical thought that nationals in low skilled employment are mostly the ones getting fucked by immigration, and have nowhere to go to when they loose their jobs. so the general belief is that immigration does have casualties and therefore there exists solidarity to nationals.