[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?