Should Immigrants Have Human Rights?

[AGBF]

Some food for thought. Should immigrants have human rights?...http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/should-immigrants-lose-their-human-rights/?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region&region=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region&_r=0

 

[telephone89]

That was a (long, but) good read. I don't know much about American laws, but I do agree and disagree with some points. Mostly about the part that it doesn't take something away from people who 'followed the rules'. Im basing everything I say here on my own experiences with Canadian immigration - but I know people who have come here legally, like for example, my partners parents. They did all their paperwork, waited, etc, and came over. They are very much Canadianized now, but still hold strong roots with their home country. They are one of the strongest advocates against illegal immigration that I know, because they know it creates a negative view on immigrants in general. When people talk about closing up or tightening immigration controls, (i think) they are thinking of the people coming to the country and abusing their rights and priveledges, which a lot of the legal immigrants don't do. i live in a fairly multicultral area, and deal a lot with my partners family and their friends. Most of them have been here for a while, but when they have someone staying with them on a visa, they don't want to do anything to jeopordize them having a chance to stay.

 

[missy]

Thank you for linking that Deb. Excellent read. To answer your question yes,I think immigrants should have human rights. They are human beings. As long as they are contributing members of society and not involved in criminal activity I feel they deserve to stay here and deserve all the rights any citizen has. In fact I feel they should become citizens if they do want to make a life here.

I agree with Joseph Carens.

I’m sure that most people in rich countries think there is some sort of justification for the way the world is organized today and that their privileges are defensible. The real challenge for them is this. Is there some story that they can tell to the human beings on the other side of this rich-poor divide as to why these existing arrangements are fair? Would they think the arrangements were just if they were in the position of the excluded? I don’t think so. In my view, a just world would be one in which the economic and political differences between countries would be greatly reduced and people would be free to move (but not feel driven to do so). That is the sort of arrangement that could be justified to everyone.

I cannot help but remember what happened in the 1930's when the Jewish people who were trying to escape Hitler and were denied admission to our country. That should never ever happen again to anyone. That was immoral, unethical and indefensible in every way. But even if one is not fleeing for their safety I feel the same. If they will be productive contributing members of society we should grant them admission. It is the only right thing to do IMO. They are human beings just like us and deserve a chance at a better life.

 

[AGBF]

I don't know much about American laws, but I do agree and disagree with some points. Mostly about the part that it doesn't take something away from people who 'followed the rules'. Im basing everything I say here on my own experiences with Canadian immigration - but I know people who have come here legally, like for example, my partners parents. They did all their paperwork, waited, etc, and came over. They are very much Canadianized now, but still hold strong roots with their home country. They are one of the strongest advocates against illegal immigration that I know,

What you have written about Canada is true, also, of the United States. I believe that many recent immigrants are far more resistant to illegal immigrants than some of us whose roots are deeper in US history. I believe that that may be because, no matter how hard our forbears struggled to immigrate here, the struggles was usually one against poverty or nature, not one against US immigration laws. The US welcomed our ancestors legally. Whether it starved and froze them them was another matter!!! But our families didn't face legal hurdles to enter. Anyone could come in. That wasn't so for the recent immigrants. So they resent granting a privilege they did not have to others.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Karl_K]

What you have written about Canada is true, also, of the United States. I believe that many recent immigrants are far more resistant to illegal immigrants than some of us whose roots are deeper in US history. I believe that that may be because, no matter how hard our forbears struggled to immigrate here, the struggles was usually one against poverty or nature, not one against US immigration laws. The US welcomed our ancestors legally. Whether it starved and froze them them was another matter!!! But our families didn't face legal hurdles to enter. Anyone could come in. That wasn't so for the recent immigrants. So they resent granting a privilege they did not have to others.

Deb/AGBF

My grandparents and great grandparents certainly did have legal challenges to coming here and followed the rules.
Even before the US became the US there were immigration laws in the colonies.

There is no human right to live in the US that is reserved for citizens and legal aliens.
We followed all the rules when my wifey4vr immigrated.
What we need to do is crack down on illegal immigration and make legal immigration easier.
For every illegal that is one less place for a legal alien and rewarding law breakers at the expense of the lawful is a human rights violation and morally repugnant.

 

[AGBF]

For every illegal that is one less place for a legal alien and rewarding law breakers at the expense of the lawful is a human rights violation

No. It's not "a human rights violation". It may be an inequity. But that's not a human rights violation. Did you read the article?

 

[AGBF]

I also like this:

" It sounds reasonable to say that people should wait their turn, but to ask people to stand in a line that doesn’t exist or doesn’t move is disingenuous."

 

[Karl_K]

I also like this:

" It sounds reasonable to say that people should wait their turn, but to ask people to stand in a line that doesn’t exist or doesn’t move is disingenuous."

If it was not for the illegals there would be more room for legal immigration.

 

[Karl_K]

For every illegal that is one less place for a legal alien and rewarding law breakers at the expense of the lawful is a human rights violation

No. It's not "a human rights violation". It may be an inequity. But that's not a human rights violation. Did you read the article?

I got tired of the babble half way through.

Punishing the lawful and rewarding the lawless is a human rights violation.
Just ask amnesty international.

 

[AGBF]

I also like this:

" It sounds reasonable to say that people should wait their turn, but to ask people to stand in a line that doesn’t exist or doesn’t move is disingenuous."

If it was not for the illegals there would be more room for legal immigration.

Only if one has already limited the number of immigrants. In my opinion there is still room for immigrants.

At any rate, the author's point is valid. If the immigrants in question will never be considered for legal immigrant status, it is disingenuous to compare them to others who would be on the fast track to getting into this country legally.

 

[packrat]

It sounded to me like he was advocating anyone should be able to go wherever they want whenever they want, regardless, and we just have to make room and provide for them. Am I understanding that right?

I can understand basic human rights, like coming here legally and getting help to find a place to live and such...but not oh hey, come on over, we'll get you this place to live for free forever, feed you daily forever...we'll clothe you, send you to school, provide 100% medical coverage for all your needs and our resident tax payers will be more than happy to foot the bill for you for the next 30 years. We'll go out of our way to provide someone every where you may need to go who has used their own money to become fluent in your language so you never have to learn ours. And we'll go ahead and adjust our customs and everything we do to make it more home like and comfy for you.

 

[Karl_K]

At any rate, the author's point is valid. If the immigrants in question will never be considered for legal immigrant status, it is disingenuous to compare them to others who would be on the fast track to getting into this country legally.

That argument does not fly.....
Using the same logic,,,
It is not likely that I would ever be considered for a job paying $5 million a year as a ceo of a bank. so its ok that I steal $5 million a year from the bank?

 

[AGBF]

At any rate, the author's point is valid. If the immigrants in question will never be considered for legal immigrant status, it is disingenuous to compare them to others who would be on the fast track to getting into this country legally.

That argument does not fly.....
Using the same logic,,,
It is not likely that I would ever be considered for a job paying $5 million a year as a ceo of a bank. so its ok that I steal $5 million a year from the bank?

That isn't the same logic. The interviewee wasn't ruling on the rightness or wrongness of your stealing money from a bank. He was saying that it is disingenuous to tell people in your situation that if they wait patiently and play by the rules they will make $5 million a year as CEO of a bank.

Deb

 

[Karl_K]

That isn't the same logic. The interviewee wasn't ruling on the rightness or wrongness of your stealing money from a bank. He was saying that it is disingenuous to tell people in your situation that if they wait patiently and play by the rules they will make $5 million a year as CEO of a bank.

Deb

So your saying that if someone tells me I can be the ceo of a bank and make $5 million a year and it don't happen in a short time then its ok for me to steal $5 million a year from a bank?

 

[Dancing Fire]

What you have written about Canada is true, also, of the United States. I believe that many recent immigrants are far more resistant to illegal immigrants than some of us whose roots are deeper in US history. I believe that that may be because, no matter how hard our forbears struggled to immigrate here, the struggles was usually one against poverty or nature, not one against US immigration laws. The US welcomed our ancestors legally. Whether it starved and froze them them was another matter!!! But our families didn't face legal hurdles to enter. Anyone could come in. That wasn't so for the recent immigrants. So they resent granting a privilege they did not have to others.

Deb/AGBF

My grandparents and great grandparents certainly did have legal challenges to coming here and followed the rules.
Even before the US became the US there were immigration laws in the colonies.

There is no human right to live in the US that is reserved for citizens and legal aliens.
We followed all the rules when my wifey4vr immigrated.
What we need to do is crack down on illegal immigration and make legal immigration easier.
For every illegal that is one less place for a legal alien and rewarding law breakers at the expense of the lawful is a human rights violation and morally repugnant.

I agreed with Stormy 101%. My family and I immigrated to the US legally, and I had to wait until I was 18 to become a US citizen. why should illegals get a free pass?...

 

[movie zombie]

when illegal immigration is the result of generations of US interference in countries creating a situation in which people cannot live safely, when it is the result of US dumping corn into their markets thereby eliminating that populations ability to earn a sustainable living, when the US opposes a legally and democratically elected president in another country and actively finances the coup that removes said president, well, yes, this country should expect there to be a vast influx into it by illegal means. one does not suffer generations of abuse w/o trying to provide a safe environment for oneself and family. one does not suffer economic collapse w/o trying to move to where one can earn a living.

 

[MJO]

My parents came to this country with us after waiting for their paperwork for years. There were limits and quotas for each country's population and exceptions for those that were persecuted in their respective countries. I do understand that some people do not want to or can't wait their turn in line and do things that are not legal according to US immigration laws. They are gambling that they do not get caught. Immigration laws are set peoples from all over the world have an equal chance of coming to this great nation. If they do get caught they should be subject to punishment as all lawbreakers should. Like them or not laws are necessary. If outdated they can and should be changed but not by one individuals decision.

We want people to come here not only for them to have a better life but so they can improve our country and ours as well. Just as we can't go out and purchase everything we want because we don't have the funds, our country and and government can't give everything to everyone that may want or deserve it. It's just a fact. We all individually and collectively need to prioritize to stretch our resources for the greater good. Everyone want's a better life unfortunately we can't give it to everyone there are just not enough resources. Do all of you that advocate letting everyone in the country that wants to be here open your homes and give out your food to all that ask? No? Why? Because if you did you would not have enough for yourselves.

 

[AGBF]

Immigration laws are set peoples from all over the world have an equal chance of coming to this great nation.

This is the problem, MJO. What you wrote is a fallacy. The laws are broken and, despite your "if the laws are broken, all we have to do is fix them" statement, there isn't a chance of an ice cube in hell of fixing them. Immigration policy is set according to political power. As missy said above, many Jews could have been saved from extermination during World War II if the United States had opened their doors to them. They didn't. It isn't true that people from all countries have an equal chance of entering the United States. It isn't true that they have an equal, compelling need, either.

 

[Karl_K]

Immigration laws are set peoples from all over the world have an equal chance of coming to this great nation.

This is the problem, MJO. What you wrote is a fallacy. The laws are broken and, despite your "if the laws are broken, all we have to do is fix them" statement, there isn't a chance of an ice cube in hell of fixing them. Immigration policy is set according to political power. As missy said above, many Jews could have been saved from extermination during World War II if the United States had opened their doors to them. They didn't. It isn't true that people from all countries have an equal chance of entering the United States. It isn't true that they have an equal, compelling need, either.

That is no reason to reward those that break the law.
That is the bottom line.
I think that the bankers getting by with their crimes and not going to jail like they should have over the crash of 2008 is unjust.
Does that make it ok for me to break the law and rob a bank?

 

[MJO]

Immigration laws are set peoples from all over the world have an equal chance of coming to this great nation.

This is the problem, MJO. What you wrote is a fallacy. The laws are broken and, despite your "if the laws are broken, all we have to do is fix them" statement, there isn't a chance of an ice cube in hell of fixing them. Immigration policy is set according to political power. As missy said above, many Jews could have been saved from extermination during World War II if the United States had opened their doors to them. They didn't. It isn't true that people from all countries have an equal chance of entering the United States. It isn't true that they have an equal, compelling need, either.

My parents decided to immigrate to the US because the military came to power in Burma. I spent many Holidays when I was younger with my older relatives. A lot had their arms tattooed with numbers from the concentration camps so I understand special circumstances such as oppression and human rites abuses. Under those circumstances we shift the amount of immigrants allowed from those areas to increase but we then have to lower the amount from other areas. That is what our immigration laws were meant to do. To help ease those allowed in to assimilate into society and grow the economy.

I didn't say if its broken just fix it, I know it's not easy to change anything in our political system. I said ONE person Unilaterally can't make a decision to change it.

As I said I understand why people do what they do to come here but if they do so legally they bear the consequences if they get caught.

If you sneak into a movie theater and you get caught should the owner let you stay and watch the rest of the movie or should they call the police and have you arrested. From what I understand you think they should give them popcorn and a soda also.

 

[MJO]

when illegal immigration is the result of generations of US interference in countries creating a situation in which people cannot live safely, when it is the result of US dumping corn into their markets thereby eliminating that populations ability to earn a sustainable living, when the US opposes a legally and democratically elected president in another country and actively finances the coup that removes said president, well, yes, this country should expect there to be a vast influx into it by illegal means. one does not suffer generations of abuse w/o trying to provide a safe environment for oneself and family. one does not suffer economic collapse w/o trying to move to where one can earn a living.

I remember when people complained that the US was dumping good corn and grain into the ocean to keep the prices up for US farmers and then they started giving it to 3rd world countries instead. Now you are complaining we are giving it or selling below cost to them?

 

[AGBF]

Immigration laws are set peoples from all over the world have an equal chance of coming to this great nation.

This is the problem, MJO. What you wrote is a fallacy. The laws are broken and, despite your "if the laws are broken, all we have to do is fix them" statement, there isn't a chance of an ice cube in hell of fixing them. Immigration policy is set according to political power. As missy said above, many Jews could have been saved from extermination during World War II if the United States had opened their doors to them. They didn't. It isn't true that people from all countries have an equal chance of entering the United States. It isn't true that they have an equal, compelling need, either.

That is no reason to reward those that break the law.
That is the bottom line.
I think that the bankers getting by with their crimes and not going to jail like they should have over the crash of 2008 is unjust.
Does that make it ok for me to break the law and rob a bank?

It is the bottom line for you. Joseph Carens looks at matters differently. He sees the world as essentially feudal. Go to the article to read his description of that. His argument is that even if people have the ability to make decisions on who is to enter their borders and to remain there, that some decisions are morally wrong.

As he discusses how easy it wold be to put an open door immigration policy in place in what he considers our feudal system he says to the person interviewing him,

"It was also pretty hard to convince most of the nobility that there was something wrong with feudalism. They were happy to believe that it was ordained by God or that deep social inequalities were inevitable or something of the sort. I’m sure that most people in rich countries think there is some sort of justification for the way the world is organized today and that their privileges are defensible. The real challenge for them is this. Is there some story that they can tell to the human beings on the other side of this rich-poor divide as to why these existing arrangements are fair? Would they think the arrangements were just if they were in the position of the excluded? I don’t think so. In my view, a just world would be one in which the economic and political differences between countries would be greatly reduced and people would be free to move (but not feel driven to do so). That is the sort of arrangement that could be justified to everyone."

Deb

 

[MJO]

Ultimately it is the bottom line. If you have enough food for 10 people but there are 20 what do you do? Do you feed all 20 and all starve or do you only feed 10 and they stay healthy? What is the more moral judgement? Letting 10 starve or all 20 just over a longer period of time. Now if you tell me there is enough food for all 20 and 10 decide to keep all the food and starve the other 10 that is different.

Another analogy is if there is a fire and only one staircase who should go first? The slow and weak? Some say yes because they are the most vulnerable but they slow the progress of the healthy and cause more of the healthy do die by not being able to move fast enough. In a perfect world no one would have to make those choices but this is not a perfect world. Those choices have to be made by some to provide for the benefit of most. A lot of times those choices are influenced by greed and this is wrong.

My father died about 5 years ago in a nursing home. My sister and our families visited at least once a week for years, He ran out of money and the home was paid for by the government. He was almost 80 years old. He had prostrate cancer and needed dialysis 3 times a week. In his final year it cost the US taxpayers over $500,000 for his care. Do I think that is fair? No and my only sister agrees with me. We loved our dad but the resources could have been better spent in other areas. How many homeless and hungry could you help with that money and it would make a permanent difference in their lives. An 80 year old man with cancer and in need of dialysis with no chance of getting better is not a priority. When he passed the Drs. wanted to try and revive him, for what? To continue spending resources on someone that will not have a better existence? i told you this because I not only preach this but as they say put my and everyone else's money where my mouth is. I was taught this by my father. Do the most good for the most amount of people not just for yourself and those you know.

Maurice

 

[packrat]

I think what we should just do is 100% open our borders. Let everyone come from anywhere, any time, and they become an immediate citizen and are then able to get welfare, and have immediate access to all the rights and privileges afforded us by being citizens. There should be no test, no required immunization or proof of identity, no protocol or steps or proper channels. In fact, since so many people have a hard time getting here, we should start up a transit system of buses, and ships for those across the ocean. Those of us who are already paying taxes should just smile and continue to do so. We should increase taxes to cover the increased burden, b/c those people will need to be clothed and fed and we will need to now find a way to communicate w/them. Because the United States is built to take on an untold number of people. Pshaw, the US can just automatically support as many new people as we need to, millions and millions even. The food and clothing and shelter, medicine, everything else needed will just fall from the sky like manna. Why bother putting up rules or laws if they aren't going to be followed or respected? Cuz if we don't like it...we can just leave right? Isn't that the favored answer? And yanno, we can just go...why, we can just go wherever we want, right? B/c other countries will follow suit and let us just move right on in, right? They'll say shove over, these here people had a hard time where they came from so let's do right by them, we'll provide food, clothing, shelter, medicine, we'll go ahead and provide our citizens with classes to learn this new language so the new people don't have to change a thing, they can go ahead and vote too. It's good for us to learn that only those of us who were born and raised here should follow the rules, and that other people who were born elsewhere, can just saunter on over anytime and live here and not follow the laws as set forth. The laws we have are only for certain people, certain citizens, not for everybody.

 

[MJO]

Most people I know who say "We" should take care of everyone. The government should do more for this group or that but they never say tax "Me" more. If you want to take care of everyone sell "YOUR" bling to pay for it. Open "YOUR" home to house them and "YOUR" cupboard to feed them. Don't tell everyone else to pay if you aren't willing to do the same. If not you're just a hypocrite.

 

[packrat]

I think people who say "we" need to do this and "we" need to do that have their heads in the sand about who is going to provide and pay for the "this and that" they proclaim "we" should be doing.

 

[MJO]

It reminds me of when I helped the local football association in town. The coaches were volunteer fathers. One of the mothers that drove her son over in her Mercedes asked why we have to have practice so late that the boys didn't have a chance to have dinner and that "Someone" should bring sandwiches for them to eat. I said "I'm so happy to hear you would like to bring everyone meals". I never heard another word from her.

 

[ksinger]

Too many angles and not enough time, so I'll just ramble a bit. I'd love to hone in on several angle, but again...it takes time I don't have.

Well, as usual, it's more complicated than that.

As to the assertion that immigrants came unhindered into this country, well, prior to the Civil War, yes that's mostly true. But the bulk of those immigrants were still Western European and of Protestant extraction - meaning mostly like the people who founded this country. When the waves of immigrants from Catholic countries (and this country could in many ways be seen as a reaction against Catholicism) like Ireland and Italy increased, the alarm grew, so that from about 1880 onward for one reason or another, there was increasing regulation of who entered this country. So let's not act as if concern over the correct kind of immigrants we want here - no matter how that concept of "correct" has morphed over the centuries, is something new, or simply protecting privilege. It is not.
We excluded people for being insane, infectious disease, being polygamous, or being anarchists - that is, for their political views, basically a whole laundry list of undesirable traits we thought objectionable at the time.

The author wishes to shorten the discussion to the issue of immigration as it exists today, rather than looking at it in the context of a very long history. He also wishes to address it from a purely moral standpoint, which is unrealistic, both from a human standpoint and even more, from a economic and political standpoint. Why do people keep insisting that our motivations should be purely moral? (and whose morals is always a nice rabbit hole to go down and usually highlights how muddy those waters can get) States have never ever operated from a purely moral position. He's right, we are always juggling competing moral viewpoints. We are even today, in massive disagreement in this country about how to treat our own citizens morally or compassionately, why does anyone think morality would be a prime consideration when addressing the illegal immigration issue?


This country's immigration has always been predicated upon the immigrant assimilating much more than not. And the immigration was primarily from Europe, which tended to supply a certain degree of conformity from the start. Most of our internal struggles have been amongst people with a common cultural understanding and a common language - basically a very narrow range and primarily politcal rather than cultural, and it's part of what gave us our stability - we weren't arguing core differences and understandings of how the world works, we were, in the Civil War for instance, cultural and sometimes blood, brothers arguing. (Part of that defintion of a nation) There was no idea of multiculturalism, the melting pot meant you came here and assimilated into the dominant culture, the language, and the political ideas, not that we celebrated diversity to high degree - we celebrated that YOU became US. Assimilation was in fact one of the stated goals of public education, for all immigrants, but most glaringly for native Americans. The alloy might have been slightly different, but you were not allowed to stay a chunk of unmelted metal. The idea of multiculturalism is very different now. I'm not saying it's entirely bad, but let's not impose today's concepts of diversity on the real history.

The question now is can the US assimilate vast numbers of people who, quite frankly, are used to a very corrupt and pretty much failed government. After long centuries of imperalism in South America and Mexico, hispanics are, quite used to the idea that government is the problem, and running under the governmental and power radar, out of long necessity. And what has been and is the drumbeat of the conservatives? That government is the problem and must be drowned in the bathtub. THAT, I would argue is a true threat to the union, and the acceptance of more and more people who agree with it, may finally break us. Which makes the conservative antipathy to hispanic immigrants even more ironic, since they are actually more in agreement with conservatives,from a cultural perspective, with the idea that government is the enemy. In any case, I would argue that the US is at its most fragile right now. We've always been more fragile than we like to admit - the US has always been mostly an idea, and a very specific idea flowing out of the Enlightenment, and of a level of participatory government. The idea is starting to fray badly.


Quite a few of us have come to think it unworkable that we can waltz in somewhere (Iraq perhaps?) impose our idea of a Western-style democracy and then waltz out and have it stick. The prevailing culture will reassert itself. If we stayed en masse? Maybe. But without that critical mass, real change to the prevailing culture will not stick. On the reverse, people like that - like ME - also feel that if we accept a critical mass of people who come here strictly for economic reasons, demand to keep their cultural identity (to stay chuncky instead of melt) which includes their very own huge dose of "government as the problem", with the help of those screaming the mantra of multicultural "fairness" on one side, and the conservatives trying to restrict voting to the "right" people on the other, there WILL come a point where the prevailing Enlightenment idea of a functioning participatory government WILL die


Deb, if like the author, you assert that a country has no right - moral or economic - to restrict who comes into the country, then it begs the question, just what IS a country, a nation? Does it even have any meaning? How do you organize a "country" when there is no longer a prevailing idea (because insisting there be one is not "fair") and there is no longer a prevailing language or bonds of history and tribe? How does that work? Is there a limit on how much diversity one can accept and still be something recognizably American?
And I'm not the least bit snarky saying those things. Those are genuine questions that very few entertain, and when you do you will find they are deadly difficult to wrap your head around.

Outta time! Later!