The Ultimate Immigration Debate

originally posted by: Spacespider
I got no problem with immigration at all..
I only have a problem with the religion Islam and its teachings...

Then logically, you WOULD have a problem with immigration, because your first sentence implies the only restriction you do support is one against Muslims. If you only want to put restrictions on Muslims because they identify as Muslims, how could that not be seen as anti-Muslim?

originally posted by: GuidedKill
I have no problem with Legal Immigration, It's the illegal immigration that I am against...

If you have a problem with illegal immigration, then you have a problem with immigration in its most basic definition. Think about it.

Granted the whole system may need an overhaul however how are we supposed to do that when we don't even enforce the current rules and regulations on immigration.

Because the justification for not fixing the problem you just mentioned (the illegal variety) is due to appeals to historical arguments that you ought NOT be relevant. It's failing to put into context why legal immigration back then was good and therefore it is automatically good now.

I have a funny feeling this thread won't remain civil and will be closed shortly.

Let's hope those with that precise intention don't get their way then. I have faith in the moderators of this website, so I am not worried for the moment.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
I asked where/how those percentages in the OP were decided upon - crickets so far - which I suspect is exactly as you inferred, which is that they were pulled out of thin air. It was a well presented OP...lots of style with little substance. That's unfortunate for 'The Ultimate Immigration Debate'.

I have only just returned to this thread now as it is morning where I live. I am looking at all the responses and trying to respond to all.

I have been researching this issue for years. I thought of the best and most reasonable arguments for each side I have encountered, the ones that are ALWAYS referred to in some way. I then answered each argument category reason (ARC) with the most concise one I could muster without making the definition more complicated than was needed (because as I stated earlier, the basic definition of Immigration, which was outlined in the opening post, would only be used.)

So I scored the "strength" (or tendency to take the argument seriously without knowing the other side's counter argument first) of the argument based on a percentage score out of 100.

I am truly surprised some people are so fixated on the "method" used to calculate the numbers, rather than asking why I personally gave those percentage scores that I did. I would be more happy to address that and it is FAR more relevant to the actual problem they think they are addressing.

But anyway, it wouldn't matter whether every point was backed up by UN approved official studies, that too would not be good enough for me to know anything about what I am speaking.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Why frame it as immigration rather than Illegal immigration, not following the laws of the country you wish to reside in?

People try to shift the discussion when it's really about coming to a country by the proper prescribed means. That's also doesn't mean open borders with unlimited migration. Not every country needs unfettered migrants coming to them.

originally posted by: TonyS
I'll go out on a limb here and focus on this:

My thinking here is that you may have fallen into a trap of sorts. While history is an imperfect "predictor" when considering current circumstances, it does provide guidance when viewed from a wider perspective.

So, for example, history instructs that the Roman Empire was brought down in no small part because they couldn't control the borders and were overwhelmed, culturally overwhelmed that is. But a closer examination reveals a greater truth.......that the Roman Culture was one that had, over time, fallen away from its core belief systems of right/wrong, good/evil, etc. As a result, the "Roman" population came to eschew civic and military service and as things began to crumble, the elites escaped with their wealth to Byzantium via the port at Ravena. As well, the culture of the Roman Republic roots were never fully embraced by the huge freed-slave population and that lead to further deterioration of the core culture.

That is an interesting perspective. THIS is the kind of reply I was hoping for instead of the "you pulled everything out of thin air" and "no evidence, gtfo now!" Thank you for being the first reply (so far) that properly comprehended the point I was getting at.

The trouble with your argument is how you are implying an objective source of right/wrong and good/evil (an argument in favour of moral absolutes). When I say objective source, I am NOT saying "evidence/facts" to substantiate the claim, I am asking on what basis you can determine whether something is right/wrong or good/evil? I have a suspicion what your answer might be, but it would be grossly unfair to make assumptions about you after only a single interaction with you in this thread, so I will not do so.

When examined as a whole, history reveals that every great "Empire" has similarly crumbled from within. Wealth begets wilful sloth, over indulgence and the sense that the "old" cultural values can indeed be thrown out with abandon.

It's strange you should put the word "Empire" in quotation marks, because I was just going to ask why an "Empire" is the ideal type of civilisation to aim at emulating. I suppose I could now ask if we can replace your word Empire with "superpower" as a more accurate modern description of what you are referring to? If so, then I'd say that being a superpower has many benefits, but far more problems than many seem to realise. Even the most notable ones throughout history. Why is it good to strive to be THE most powerful? To be the most militantly superior? Those are questions most people should be asking themselves in modern times.

How does this affect the consideration of immigration in the US today? Actually, it doesn't, it is as you say, irrelevant and there's no need for debate simply because, as the US core culture is undermined, weakened, and abandoned, immigration does nothing except hasten the ultimate demise because there's no core cultural reference point for the newly arrived immigrant to identify with. That means, there's no genuine method of "assimilation" and indeed, the US counter-culture has branded "assimilation" as a bad thing, preferring immigrants to retain their core cultures rather than to attempt to find one in the US to graft onto.

The source of the destruction you are referring to relies on your earlier argument that "morals" are the true basis for maintaining a country's strength and prosperity. I challenged that above and if you have read it, you should understand why I cannot comment any further on this point.

So, in a sense you're right.........debating immigration is pointless because the problem isn't "immigration", its the slow death of the core culture.

I don't believe that is what I said at all. I think debating is extremely important. People should be clear about why immigration is or is not a good thing. Don't confuse core ideals with moral beliefs, it is dangerous and leads to more problems down the road. Ironically. I will now ask you to examine history to see what I mean.

My brain is now stimulated as a result of reading and then responding to your post. Thank you for making my efforts to check back on this thread worth doing. It would be a real shame if most replies end up asking me to clarify my methodology for the numbers in an attempt to refute my (supposedly mine) claim that immigration is bad and should not be stopped just because numbers I pulled out of thin air cannot be used as a basis for questioning others, even when those others pull entire arguments out of thin air to establish their position on the issue of immigration.

In case anybody is still wondering about the title of the thread: it's a debate between which key ideas supporting either side are more reasonable to consider. The one side can only compete, in this regard, with the other side if appeals to history are permitted.

originally posted by: uncommitted
Why are you having a conversation with yourself and calling it the ultimate debate? Why is your opinion the ultimate point on the subject to anyone but you?

If I need to explain that to you then either you did not properly read and comprehend the majority of the thread, or you are trying to attack my credibility to be in the position to discuss immigration in the first place. There is no alternative.

Which is it, uncommitted?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
LOL! Dark Ghost has a little case of megalomania. But he is good thinker.

Do you understand what megalomania means? If you are confident that you do, then please explain how anything in the opening post can lead to the label you have just given me, even if it is an "isolated example".

originally posted by: intrptr
I was just gonna say, TLDR... you said it better.

Why think for yourself when somebody else can do it for you?

originally posted by: pavil
Why frame it as immigration rather than Illegal immigration, not following the laws of the country you wish to reside in?

Because illegal immigration still meets the basic definition I used in the opening post's second paragraph. You think you are arguing about a separate issue, but you are actually arguing about a different aspect of the same issue (when other variables like the one of legality has not been referenced yet).

It's not easy to explain when you don't realise that is what you are doing. I'll try my best: Refugees, asylum seekers, economic opportunists and illegal immigrants can all fall under the basic definition of immigration I used in the opening post (go see paragraph 2 of the opening post). In other words, you have been conditioned to or are yourself confused about how you are supposed to view the word immigrant. This leads you to draw improper conclusions (it's the illegal immigration, not immigration that's the problem) about the meaning of the word you are arguing in defence of (immigration that is legal). People that HAVE to rely on historical arguments to support their position, are relying on you doing the above instead of addressing the genuine issue being raised (the current problem with encouraging the current immigration that is going on right now.)

Yes, I am implying you do have a problem with all forms of immigration without realising it (which seems rude, I'm sorry). But it ONLY seems like a bad thing because you have been conditioned to believe opposing immigration for ANY reason is a bad thing. The "legal immigrants" that you support who go through the whole process correctly and do not cause trouble are not any concern of yours (or mine).

People try to shift the discussion when it's really about coming to a country by the proper prescribed means. That's also doesn't mean open borders with unlimited migration. Not every country needs unfettered migrants coming to them.

If you think I was using deception to try to hide what you just claimed I supposedly was really trying to argue, how can you explain the conclusion of the opening post?

If you still cannot tell that my problem is with using historical arguments about history to justify current issues involving immigration, then there is literally no way I can try explain it any further. Either you have to trust that I am not mentally insane, or you have to imply that I am mentally insane to not see what I demonstrated in the opening post. If you do believe I am mentally insane and not worthy of being listened to, I won't hold it against you. But at least try to absorb what I have explained (BEFORE you are 100% convinced that is the case). Otherwise, can just exit the thread and not have to involve yourself in such madness, which unfortunately leaves both of us in a worse situation: your issue won't get fixed and neither will mine.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I am actually not sure what you are getting at because I think most people support legal immigration. It is the illegal flow of non-vetted foreign invaders to which most people are opposed.

Well if that isn't the black kettle calling the peddle back? Total racism!
i starred your post.

originally posted by: randyvs
Well if that isn't the black kettle calling the peddle back? Total racism!
i starred your post.

I don't know about your history with the other member you replied to, but in the case that's irrelevant (to what you just posted), were you implying something about me or randyvs?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

My my, full of ourselves are we? I'm quite confident of the distinction between legal immigration into a country and the opposite. Thanks for trying to educate me. There is a difference. Open border immigration is not a solution that improves the quality of most modern first world countries, especially their native born citizens who foot the bill. Immigration only occurs on a meaningful level when certain conditions exist in a country. Absent those conditions, there arent the national needs to encourage massive immigration. Immigration is a policy imposed by a Country on migrants, not imposed on a Country by said immigrants.

History is NOT a guide wise enough to rely on when it comes to examining the current circumstances of our planet.

Really? Instituions like the Federal Reserve Bank study history. Christians and Muslims use history as a bedrock of their faith. Even local police use history.

Everyone using history (even for immigration, it revels trends among other things) is wrong and your correct?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Countries, where the businesses make things happen and not the ballots in the box, love a larger market. No need to expand to other countries or to ship goods to other countries. Simply enlarge the existing Walmart, for example, to service more folks and those bodies muse come from moree area babies (eventual buyers) or far more quickly, from others from other places streaming past your cash registers with local money or government vouchers.

All other arguments are entirely non-specific and non-productive and avoid the very basic action that is taking place. Greed is the unbridled, normal psychological aspect of human behavior which is the basis drive of human nature. It is a foundation law of Economics 101 as taught the first day in college courses dealing with economics.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: uncommitted
Why are you having a conversation with yourself and calling it the ultimate debate? Why is your opinion the ultimate point on the subject to anyone but you?

If I need to explain that to you then either you did not properly read and comprehend the majority of the thread, or you are trying to attack my credibility to be in the position to discuss immigration in the first place. There is no alternative.

Which is it, uncommitted?

It's your ego that's the issue. Your opinion is nothing more than that - to the extent you actually think you have narrowed down the reason for my response and neglected to consider it may have been about you thinking you were in a position to set the pieces for an 'ultimate' debate.

You (like me) are posting anonymously on an internet forum. You have as much or little credibility as anyone else who does the same. Get over yourself and maybe the conversation would be interesting.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

were you implying something about me or randyvs?

C'mon Darkl it was totally undirected sarcasm brother.
But the star was for Metallicus.