[haberman]

> How is living in limbo for a decade, with literally no single piece of paper identifying you as a human being is "cutting in line?"

Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to. You got what you wanted faster because your family broke the law.

I still believe that children who are brought here illegally should get a lot more leniency because they weren't responsible for their actions.

[coryl]

Because other kids who might have liked to live in the US and go to a top university didn't get to.

And some are lucky enough to simply be born in the US, and squander those opportunities anyway. I think its a bit funny to be citing "the law" as a grounds for which to argue this. It really has to go above and beyond what current laws are, into a moral and philosophical discussion of how people should treat each other. After all, in a time where there were no "laws", the settlers who landed in America pretty much raped the native population and took what they wanted. Where's their (the natives') justice? The entire south west coast (texas, arizona, california) was taken in wars from ACTUAL native mexicans. And now, a mexican can't walk across his ancestral land because of "immigration law". That seems kind of funny and wrong to me.

I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" - its something similar to the concept of the "golden rule".

We're all human beings, this isn't just "ours", "theirs, and "yours".

[haberman]

I'm not sure whose viewpoint your arguing against, because it's sure not mine.

If we opened our border with Mexico, there would be a flood of immigration that would make the southern states a lot more like the Mexico they are trying to escape from than the US they are trying to escape to. This is purely a pragmatic argument. No one wins in this case (in the long term at least). It's also harder to provide for our national security if we can't control our borders (think how the borders were frozen for the few days after 9/11 -- no one knew what was going to happen next).

Since having an open border would be good for no one, it must be regulated. Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.

These are purely pragmatic arguments. Waxing poetic about history and philosophy is a rathole that won't actually help solve this problem. The Trail of Tears is a terrible mark on our history, but opening our borders with Mexico isn't going to give Native Americans their civilization back.

[coryl]

Right, although I never said to open the border, nor hinted at any specific solutions.

More so, I asked for you to see the situation in a different light. I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else", while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article, and in essence, ignoring your own history and how you got to where you are. In my opinion, its actually a bit arrogant and self-centered, to think that its just that easy to dictate something so complicated as immigration.

Given that it must be regulated, it is both fairest and most beneficial if all immigrants go through the same procedures to get here.

If you could tell me, what "fairness" and "regulation" did you face when you came to America? Or your parents, or their parents, or theirs' as the case may be. The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.

[haberman]

> Right, although I never said to open the border, nor hinted at any specific solutions.

Exactly, you seem to prefer to philosophize and invoke moral criticism than to actually discuss practical solutions.

> I think its really easy for you (or others) to say "country's full, you'll have to get in line like everyone else"

I started this thread by arguing that we should have compassion for people who run into headaches while trying to immigrate legally, and that we should aim to make things easier for them.

> while ignoring the circumstances of real people like the author of the article

I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.

> The only difference between you and anyone else is when and where you were born, thats all. Its crazy to think you have entitlement to rights and opportunities, simply because you were born this side of an invisible line.

The only difference between me and Bill Gates' kids is who we happened to be born to, but that doesn't entitle me to grow up in Bill Gates' house.

It is you who are making an argument of entitlement. A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa. The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.

The only thing that makes my position more privileged than a Mexican's is that my countryman and ancestors have built a more prosperous economy than Mexico has. That's dumb luck on my part, no doubt, which I am grateful for. I didn't do anything to earn that.

But there's no way everyone on earth is going to be born with equal opportunity. And there is no virtue in opening wide the gates of immigration if just ends up making the (currently) desirable place more like the (currently) undesirable place.

[coryl]

Well, there might just be a difference in the way we see things. Its comments like these that bug me:

I started this thread by arguing that people brought here as children deserve more leniency.

Obviously, we don't hold children to the same standard as adults. However, the fact that its not an implicit belief (to give a child benefit of the doubt) and has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority. Here's why: you already believe that this person is a criminal, that all illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as such. That even though he came here as a kid, that this is all he knows and lives, we should be lenient when we consider kicking him out. I see selfish ration and logic in your words, but I see no compassion or sensibility for others.

A Mexican is no more entitled to come and work in the USA without a visa than I'm entitled to go and work in Mexico without a visa.

You'll never work in Mexico because nobody will pay you a livable wage, thats the difference. It sounds the equivalent of someone saying: "I don't step through your garbage dump looking for food, so you don't step through my wine vineyard. That's called fairness."

The only "right and opportunity" I am invoking is the right to live in the community where I was born, a right and opportunity that most of the world enjoys.

Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed. By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite. You know, the people who account for something like 90% of the worlds wealth in 10% of the population.

[lionhearted]

Hey Coryl, I'm enjoying this discussion between you two and I think you both make excellent points and I'm learning from the discussion. But this out of bounds -

> has to be explicitly stated by you shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority.

You really ought not personally insult the guy you're discussing with... it doesn't help the discussion at all. Really uncalled for, haberman is disagreeing with you but he's being civil. If you don't like his points, argue without the insults.

[haberman]

> shows (to me) a form of malice, spite, arrogance, and a complex of superiority. Here's why: you already believe that this person is a criminal, that all illegal immigrants are criminals and should be treated as such.

What bothers me about your attitude is that you invoke a sense of moral superiority to defend what is nothing more than breaking the rules to get ahead. It shows more compassion for the people who will take what they want than the people who work to get it.

I can have compassion for people who come to this country looking for opportunity. But I have 10x more compassion and respect for the person who is stuck in their own country because they can't get a visa than the person who decided to break the law to get ahead.

I'm pretty sure that I would feel the same way if I had been born in Mexico. I've always been a "wait in line" kind of guy, and I'm pretty sure I would resent seeing the most impassioned defense of immigrants directed at the line-jumpers rather than the people who are still waiting in line.

> Another folly in your history books. See: slavery, colonialism, trade blocs, etc. Unfortunately for some, opportunity has literally been taken away and societies forever changed.

Ok, I've let this slide up until now, but this is a very poor attempt at implying that America has been a primary perpetrator of crimes throughout history or has somehow obtained success by "stealing" it from others.

Present-day Mexicans are mostly descendants of the Spanish and the indigenous tribes like the Aztec and Maya. The Spanish conquered and colonized the Americas for 400 years, destroying entire civilizations and enslaving the people. The indigenous people practiced human sacrifice as well as slavery. No civilization has clean hands when judged by the standards of today.

And what exactly do you think the USA did to "take opportunity away" from "some" (this turn of phrase conveniently implies a general feeling of guilt without being specific enough to evaluate). Canada seems to be doing fine, so how are you going to pin Mexico's relative poverty on the USA?

> By "most of the world enjoys", you probably mean the privileged elite.

No, I mean "most of the world." People who are forced to leave their home are called "refugees," which are estimated to be 62M people worldwide, or 1% of the world population.

[qohen]

> I would love if everyone could look up the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

[jshen]

You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law. I'm inclined to question that assumption.

I could also make the usual snarky comment and say that by the letter of the "law" we owe native americans a whole bunch of land. Maybe even the land your house is on.

[haberman]

> You seem to be assuming that something is right because it is the law.

No, I'm assuming that regulating immigration is right because not regulating it has demonstrably bad consequences, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

If regulating immigration is right, sidestepping that regulation is wrong, just like driving without a license, running a bank that doesn't keep enough reserves, or building a house that doesn't have safe wiring.

[anigbrowl]

I'm not seeing what the negative consequences are. Are you referring to the fact that some of the immigrants were criminals and mental patients, who were encouraged to emigrate from Cuba and take their problems with them? The article you cite says the scope of this problem is debatable and may well have been overstated.

Even if we accept this premise, however, the same situation applies within the United States. Many people commit crimes in one state and later move to another, where they may or may not commit further crimes. This is such a widespread phenomenon that there's a constitutional clause requiring courts in each state to give 'full faith and credit' to courts in other states, so that criminals can't escape justice by just hopping over the nearest state border. Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?

[haberman]

> Are you suggesting that we should have interstate border controls, and require Americans traveling from one US state to another to obtain a visa first?

Are you suggesting that US borders with Canada and Mexico, as well as our maritime borders, should be as open as the borders between states?

[_delirium]

I'd like to move in the direction of eliminating them, yes. I don't see any reason to keep US/Canadian border controls, given that the relative parity of incomes means there isn't likely to be some huge, destabilizing migration. The EU's Schengen free-travel zone is a good precedent to follow on that, imo. Mexico is a harder case because of how screwed up the country currently is; opening borders tends to work better between relatively stable countries. But certainly we could start with Canada.

[anigbrowl]

I think you should answer my question first, since the existence of interstate crime is indisputable and this doesn't seem qualitatively different from the deleterious effects which you are citing in the Cuban example.

But yes, I think we should be moving towards abolition of external border controls over the long term and dissolution of geographic borders with immediate neighbors like Mexico and Canada in the short term.

[jshen]

Now you're assuming that our current regulation system is right.

I think it's clear that our current system is broken. It's far too expensive to enforce our current system, so we're left with laws that are ineffectual. Reality trumps abstract ideas, and I think we need laws that deal effectively with the reality of our situation.

[haberman]

> Now you're assuming that our current regulation system is right.

No, I'm arguing that it's more right than no regulation. But I'm not that interested in debating with someone who puts words in my mouth.

[jshen]

You keep framing things in black and white and I'm trying to make it explicit. If you don't mean what I think you mean then I am reading you wrong or it's not clear.

"I'm arguing that it's more right than no regulation"

See, more black and white. I don't think anyone is suggesting no regulation. You aren't putting words in my mouth are you? ;)

Why don't we create a legal process to let people that want to work here come and work. Why limit it so much?

[rubashov]

> It's far too expensive to enforce our current system

Huh? Our current system simply isn't enforced. It's not a matter of cost at all. It's just expedient for an alliance of big business and certain political elements to allow a continued flow of criminal aliens.

I mean, look at Israel. They enforce a much more restrictive immigration system at low cost with no difficulty. Or Japan, or Korea, or any of dozens of other nations.

[lupatus]

The Native Americans lost it fair-and-square through force of arms. Moreover, much of North America was unoccupied, unorganized territory open for colonization by Western Civilization.

Whatever tribes were able to hold out are today richly compensated - see the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

[philwelch]

I really can't tell if you're trolling or if you're serious, because I guarantee there's barely an Indian alive today who sees it the way you do.

[jarek]

So just to get this straight, you would have no probs if China were to declare war on the U.S. tomorrow, win, kill off people living in America, and settle it with their citizens?

[quanticle]

So, just because your mother put you on a plane with a complete stranger when you were 12, you should be thrown back to a third world country for a decade, even though your contributions to American society outweigh most native born citizens?

Yeah, that's real fair.

[haberman]

Are you replying to the right comment? Nowhere in this thread have I advocated deporting people who were brought here as children. I have advocated the opposite.