Merkel is making a political concession in order to hold onto power. She's giving the people what they want. But that doesn't make it right. It's just politics.
You have to understand, the Germans have a long sad history with border security. Especially for Angela Merkel who grew up in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. Every East German who fled west regards himself as a migrant. So it's understandable that she would regard walls and borders as a bad thing, and would want to welcome migrants with open arms.
Just because you and I are citizens of a nation, that does not mean that the nation exclusively belongs to us and ours. Yes we have nation states, governments, and borders. But we all have a collective responsibility which is world wide.
Much of the Holocaust could have been averted, had nations understood this. And so too Franco taking over Spain could have been averted.
"... Ms. Merkel, a pastor’s daughter and trained scientist who had grown up in Communist East Germany, was not only the first woman but the first easterner to lead her reunified country ..."
I didn't know she was from East Germany - that may be part of the reason for her pro-immigrant stance knowing what is like to live in desperate circumstances
Unfortunately, her stance here, whether principled or not, is at least partially the cause for a resurgent right. She chose a nearly childlike idealistic vision instead of recognition of the problems it was causing and the depth of feeling the German people had over it, resulting in even otherwise natural supporters moving to the right.
People who get tough on immigrants and asylum seekers are doing it because they want to do the same with their nations own people, persecute on the basis of difference, alterity. They do this in order to hold on to power. Note people like Hitler, and note people like Donald Trump.
But immigration can't be uncontrolled. It would be chaotic. You couldn't possibly plan for what would be needed for an infrastructure or what would be needed to take care of the needs you refer to.
You can't really be so stupid to believe the shit you write.
"If you don't believe in borders, why not leave the front door to your home open and invite the homeless to make themselves at home?"
Is this a serious question? The answer is because you own your house but you don't own the country. The country is a piece of land governed by a set of laws. In the abstract, the United States is also a philosophical construct about liberty and limited government. But it isn't *owned* by anyone. It's not like a giant condominium association in Boca Raton.
Besides, everyone believes in borders except for a few wackos. This is a strawman argument. There should be an orderly immigration process with background checks and health screenings (but without quotas and other arbitrary restrictions). The fact that almost everyone acknowledges that there should be an orderly process for border-crossing means that we are acknowledging that there is a border and that there should be a border. Sign the book, take a blood test, submit to a background check, and then come in.
And what infrastructure are you talking about? Roads? Schools? How would this be any different than if the American people suddenly experienced another Baby Boom? Should we have mandated abortions or a one-child policy just because roads are expensive to build? It's simple: one area gets overcrowded and people respond by moving to less densely populated areas over time. I don't see how more immigration would affect that. For most of our history, we had much more free immigration than we currently have, and yet somehow the infrastructure kept up.
I mean, wasn't your wife a migrant? Can you please explain why she should have been allowed entry, but all of these other people should be stopped at the border and prevented from coming in?
Add an immigrant electrical engineer or millionaire entrepreneur and they are a net plus economically. American Society benefits.
Add an unskilled laborer who speaks no English and they are a net negative economically. They will require economic assistance and training, at a minimum. Perhaps for life.
That’s why we control who enters. That is the role of government, to do what is best for our citizens.
Of course, I expect to be told that is immoral. It is not our responsibility to make life wonderful for the worlds 7 Billion people.
And, I expect “someone” to tell me all these unskilled laborers will suddenly become employable. Rainbows and unicorns.
Control who enters, but that has to be tempered with compassion, not determined by elitism. It is most likely those with the lowest economic clout who will be in need of refugee status.
"They will require economic assistance and training, at a minimum. Perhaps for life."
Maybe, maybe not. But just because someone 'requires' something that doesn't mean that we have to give it to them. I have no idea if they're all going to become employable. Who knows? Who cares? Frankly, I wouldn't care if they died in the street in the USA. I mean, they're going to die in Guadalajara anyway. What difference would it make where they die? At least in America they have a chance at a decent life and to make something of themselves. And if not, whatever, at least we gave them the opportunity.
Most immigrants come with little money and few skills. And some of them build great companies. That's the way it's always worked. If this country had imposed the kind of restrictions that you're suggesting then you and me and almost everyone on this board wouldn't be here in America today. That's just a fact.
And the role of government is to protect you from violence, fraud, and coercion, not to just do what's best for its citizens. Who is supposed to decide what's best? An unchecked majority? A corrupt politician? I don't need to remind you, majorities and politicians have endorsed some really bad things in the past.
I'm never going to convince most people that free trade and free immigration are what's best for society. People mostly respond to emotional appeals and I don't know how to do that. But how about a challenge: stop buying non-American-made products and stop hiring people who weren't born in America. No more iPhones, no more French champagne, no more Italian cheese, no more Google (the founders weren't born in America), no more Mexican landscapers, and definitely no more immigrant strippers. You know as well as I do that most of these dancers who have foreign accents are undocumented, right? So all of you guys should just go cold turkey. Report back in a few months and let us know how you like living in a nationalist fantasy land.
Ignoring everything else about your "plan" burlington, that wouldn't really be fair to all the people who want to immigrate here but can't just walk over a border.
Well, if they can't get here then they can't get here. We can't be expected to pay for a plane ticket, too. There's a difference between negative rights and positive rights. You have the right to move wherever you want to move. But you don't have the right to take my money to pay for a plane ticket. Besides, there are tons of charities that would probably help people relocate to the US. In fact I once sold a house to a guy who works for a charity that does exactly that.
No, it's only in your fantasy land that you have these rights. And it's not just enforced that way in the US. Hell, we already have among the most generous immigration policies in the world as it is. And that is one reason we get so taken advantage of.
I don't know why I let myself get drawn into these threads when it is obvious that the comments are just meant to troll.
BTW, I am glad that you came to your senses in acknowledging that there is a border and it needs to have some control.
I just saw that there were specific questions asked of me.
"How would this be any different than if the American people suddenly experienced another Baby Boom?"
Totally different. The births are spread over a time and it takes time for the new population to grow up allowing time to accommodate. It's not an influx of grown persons all at one time. Plus that is the reason for quotas. The flow of legal immigration can be adjusted as necessary.
"I mean, wasn't your wife a migrant?"
Yes, a legal one. I'm all for legal, controlled immigration policies that benefit the US and it's citizens, not a policy that benefits the rest of the world at our expense.
-->"BTW, I am glad that you came to your senses in acknowledging that there is a border and it needs to have some control."
My sense is we're all using different meanings for the word "control". I have a feeling SJG and BHo mean, "there should be order and process -- but otherwise, generally speaking, everyone who wants in, gets in". Open borders, but just with some process around it. That's different than the way the rest of us are using the term, where "control" implies a policy that sets criteria and limits the number of migrants.
Yeah, sort of. From 1890 to 1924, we let in almost everyone who wanted to come in, through the Ellis Island system. (And prior to that we let in *almost* everyone who wanted to come in.) From 1890 to 1924 we only rejected between 1 and 5% of the immigrants each year, usually for health reasons. So I'm suggesting that we update that: we can do background checks now. And we can also check people's social media accounts, too.
flagooner's understanding of the word "right" is not accurate. Just because governments don't acknowledge your rights, that doesn't mean you don't have them. No government on earth allows completely unrestricted immigration. That's absolutely true. And they shouldn't! But they also shouldn't have arbitrary restrictions on immigration either.
If you are diseased, if you're a member of a terrorist organization, if you've said bad things about the United States on social media, then we shouldn't let you in. But otherwise, I don't see the problem with letting people in. They seem to want to be here more than some Americans I've met. As Ronald Reagan put it, immigrants are Americans by choice.
I'm not a troll, I just got bored with talking about strip clubs. You'll notice that I'm seldom the person who posts this kind of thread in the first place. Ignore me if you want, I couldn't care less.
""I mean, wasn't your wife a migrant?"
Yes, a legal one. I'm all for legal, controlled immigration"
This is a dodge and everyone knows it. Yes, obviously your wife was legal. She's Cuban. We basically had an "open-borders policy" with Cuba until Obama ended it, just before he left office. The general rule was, if you're Cuban and if you can get here, you can stay.
Since you can't seem to read between the lines, my question to you was, why should Cubans have been treated so differently from everyone else? Why shouldn't we have had a Wet-Foot-Dry-Foot Policy with the rest of the world, too? The only problem with Wet-Foot is that it gave them automatic welfare, which I'm totally against. I don't even want to give Americans welfare, so I damn sure don't want to give any to an immigrant. But just allowing them to stay here seems reasonable to me.
Listen, we don't have to do things my way and we probably never will. We can just keep doing it your way, with 15 million undocumented aliens living amongst us, unscreened and unverified, and chaos along the border. I hope you enjoy it.
Yah. And now you understand why governments in Europe are falling or moving to tighten up immigration rules, after having ignored their own people -- who have to live through the consequences -- in favor of blind idealism. Even otherwise left-leaning people are voting to remove politicians who continue to ignore their reality here ... and again, I don't necessarily think it's a good thing for Europe to move more right, it is a tragedy that tone-deafness on this one issue is moving things this way.
31 comments
Latest
You have to understand, the Germans have a long sad history with border security. Especially for Angela Merkel who grew up in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. Every East German who fled west regards himself as a migrant. So it's understandable that she would regard walls and borders as a bad thing, and would want to welcome migrants with open arms.
SJG
If you don't believe in borders, why not leave the front door to your home open and invite the homeless to make themselves at home?
SJG
In theory it sounds like a good idea, but if they came in, I bet they'd eat all my Kit Kats, and I don't like to share them with anyone.
SJG
For their own citizens, yes, to a point but not for those from other nations. It is their nation's responsibility.
Besides, my comment wasn't directed at you. We all know you would need your mom's permission.
For their own citizens, yes, to a point but not for those from other nations. It is their nation's responsibility.
Besides, my comment wasn't directed at you. We all know you would need your mom's permission.
Much of the Holocaust could have been averted, had nations understood this. And so too Franco taking over Spain could have been averted.
SJG
I didn't know she was from East Germany - that may be part of the reason for her pro-immigrant stance knowing what is like to live in desperate circumstances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(phi…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_L…
SJG
You can't really be so stupid to believe the shit you write.
Flagooner, you seem like too nice of a person to actually believe the shit your write.
SJG
"If you don't believe in borders, why not leave the front door to your home open and invite the homeless to make themselves at home?"
Is this a serious question? The answer is because you own your house but you don't own the country. The country is a piece of land governed by a set of laws. In the abstract, the United States is also a philosophical construct about liberty and limited government. But it isn't *owned* by anyone. It's not like a giant condominium association in Boca Raton.
Besides, everyone believes in borders except for a few wackos. This is a strawman argument. There should be an orderly immigration process with background checks and health screenings (but without quotas and other arbitrary restrictions). The fact that almost everyone acknowledges that there should be an orderly process for border-crossing means that we are acknowledging that there is a border and that there should be a border. Sign the book, take a blood test, submit to a background check, and then come in.
And what infrastructure are you talking about? Roads? Schools? How would this be any different than if the American people suddenly experienced another Baby Boom? Should we have mandated abortions or a one-child policy just because roads are expensive to build? It's simple: one area gets overcrowded and people respond by moving to less densely populated areas over time. I don't see how more immigration would affect that. For most of our history, we had much more free immigration than we currently have, and yet somehow the infrastructure kept up.
I mean, wasn't your wife a migrant? Can you please explain why she should have been allowed entry, but all of these other people should be stopped at the border and prevented from coming in?
SJG
Add an unskilled laborer who speaks no English and they are a net negative economically. They will require economic assistance and training, at a minimum. Perhaps for life.
That’s why we control who enters. That is the role of government, to do what is best for our citizens.
Of course, I expect to be told that is immoral. It is not our responsibility to make life wonderful for the worlds 7 Billion people.
And, I expect “someone” to tell me all these unskilled laborers will suddenly become employable. Rainbows and unicorns.
SJG
"They will require economic assistance and training, at a minimum. Perhaps for life."
Maybe, maybe not. But just because someone 'requires' something that doesn't mean that we have to give it to them. I have no idea if they're all going to become employable. Who knows? Who cares? Frankly, I wouldn't care if they died in the street in the USA. I mean, they're going to die in Guadalajara anyway. What difference would it make where they die? At least in America they have a chance at a decent life and to make something of themselves. And if not, whatever, at least we gave them the opportunity.
Most immigrants come with little money and few skills. And some of them build great companies. That's the way it's always worked. If this country had imposed the kind of restrictions that you're suggesting then you and me and almost everyone on this board wouldn't be here in America today. That's just a fact.
And the role of government is to protect you from violence, fraud, and coercion, not to just do what's best for its citizens. Who is supposed to decide what's best? An unchecked majority? A corrupt politician? I don't need to remind you, majorities and politicians have endorsed some really bad things in the past.
I'm never going to convince most people that free trade and free immigration are what's best for society. People mostly respond to emotional appeals and I don't know how to do that. But how about a challenge: stop buying non-American-made products and stop hiring people who weren't born in America. No more iPhones, no more French champagne, no more Italian cheese, no more Google (the founders weren't born in America), no more Mexican landscapers, and definitely no more immigrant strippers. You know as well as I do that most of these dancers who have foreign accents are undocumented, right? So all of you guys should just go cold turkey. Report back in a few months and let us know how you like living in a nationalist fantasy land.
America is a project in political and racial inclusiveness, not a nationality or an ethnicity.
SJG
Well, if they can't get here then they can't get here. We can't be expected to pay for a plane ticket, too. There's a difference between negative rights and positive rights. You have the right to move wherever you want to move. But you don't have the right to take my money to pay for a plane ticket. Besides, there are tons of charities that would probably help people relocate to the US. In fact I once sold a house to a guy who works for a charity that does exactly that.
BTW, I am glad that you came to your senses in acknowledging that there is a border and it needs to have some control.
I just saw that there were specific questions asked of me.
"How would this be any different than if the American people suddenly experienced another Baby Boom?"
Totally different. The births are spread over a time and it takes time for the new population to grow up allowing time to accommodate. It's not an influx of grown persons all at one time. Plus that is the reason for quotas. The flow of legal immigration can be adjusted as necessary.
"I mean, wasn't your wife a migrant?"
Yes, a legal one. I'm all for legal, controlled immigration policies that benefit the US and it's citizens, not a policy that benefits the rest of the world at our expense.
My sense is we're all using different meanings for the word "control". I have a feeling SJG and BHo mean, "there should be order and process -- but otherwise, generally speaking, everyone who wants in, gets in". Open borders, but just with some process around it. That's different than the way the rest of us are using the term, where "control" implies a policy that sets criteria and limits the number of migrants.
THAT IS INSANE!!!!
Yeah, sort of. From 1890 to 1924, we let in almost everyone who wanted to come in, through the Ellis Island system. (And prior to that we let in *almost* everyone who wanted to come in.) From 1890 to 1924 we only rejected between 1 and 5% of the immigrants each year, usually for health reasons. So I'm suggesting that we update that: we can do background checks now. And we can also check people's social media accounts, too.
flagooner's understanding of the word "right" is not accurate. Just because governments don't acknowledge your rights, that doesn't mean you don't have them. No government on earth allows completely unrestricted immigration. That's absolutely true. And they shouldn't! But they also shouldn't have arbitrary restrictions on immigration either.
If you are diseased, if you're a member of a terrorist organization, if you've said bad things about the United States on social media, then we shouldn't let you in. But otherwise, I don't see the problem with letting people in. They seem to want to be here more than some Americans I've met. As Ronald Reagan put it, immigrants are Americans by choice.
I'm not a troll, I just got bored with talking about strip clubs. You'll notice that I'm seldom the person who posts this kind of thread in the first place. Ignore me if you want, I couldn't care less.
""I mean, wasn't your wife a migrant?"
Yes, a legal one. I'm all for legal, controlled immigration"
This is a dodge and everyone knows it. Yes, obviously your wife was legal. She's Cuban. We basically had an "open-borders policy" with Cuba until Obama ended it, just before he left office. The general rule was, if you're Cuban and if you can get here, you can stay.
Since you can't seem to read between the lines, my question to you was, why should Cubans have been treated so differently from everyone else? Why shouldn't we have had a Wet-Foot-Dry-Foot Policy with the rest of the world, too? The only problem with Wet-Foot is that it gave them automatic welfare, which I'm totally against. I don't even want to give Americans welfare, so I damn sure don't want to give any to an immigrant. But just allowing them to stay here seems reasonable to me.
Listen, we don't have to do things my way and we probably never will. We can just keep doing it your way, with 15 million undocumented aliens living amongst us, unscreened and unverified, and chaos along the border. I hope you enjoy it.
Yah. And now you understand why governments in Europe are falling or moving to tighten up immigration rules, after having ignored their own people -- who have to live through the consequences -- in favor of blind idealism. Even otherwise left-leaning people are voting to remove politicians who continue to ignore their reality here ... and again, I don't necessarily think it's a good thing for Europe to move more right, it is a tragedy that tone-deafness on this one issue is moving things this way.