<p>"You were talking about the obligations of the rich of those countries to those children .... I don't get it? "
To the families, to keep them there. The parents grew up in those countries. And it's the governments of those countries who have obligations to all of their citizens, regardless of age. You don't get it. That's exactly the point. </p>
<p>Have you ever heard the expression "if you can't dazzle with brilliance (which you can't) then baffle with bull____." That's you and you clearly don't have any understanding of this issue. College will do you a world of good.</p>
<p>I am a first generation immigrant where my father wroked at 3 jobs while going to a graduate school at the same time. He went through the long route of getting his green card (enduring ill/unfair treatment at work until his card was approved) and finally getting his citizenship. I fully understand the difficulty of doing it the right way, and certainly understand why so many foreginers would want to risk their lives to come to this country. But I do not think it's right to short circuit, and expect the govenment (Americans) to pick up the tab for providing free health care, education, subsidiary because we would not want to see innocent children suffer. What if we just cut out the benefits (incentives), so those parents would stop coming to the US illegally. If we have need of additional engineers, nurses, doctors, home care because lack of supply... then we could open our immigration quata accordingly. </p>
<p>When we communicate we are to pursuade. I have no problem understanding what many of posters are saying here(even if I disagree), but I have an immense headache every time I try to read galoisien posts. Most of the time I have no idea what he is trying to say, just a lot of words. I wonder if h speaks like that normally? I am a finance IT professional. When I speak with business people about IT, I try not to use IT jargons, I try to break it down to what they could understand. Likewise, when I am speaking to IT people I try to use terms they could understand. It doesn't make me sound smarter by using finance terms to IT people, vice versa.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But why shouldn't a member of society who has been a productive member of society be able to naturalise? He has gone through the process all but in name.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those who immigrate through legal channels CAN naturalize. The problem with your argument is, where do you draw the line? How long would the undocumented need to be here before they would get to naturalize? Will you pick an arbitrary time period, or do we grant full citizenship rights to anyone who steps across our border and promises to obey all our laws and serve in our military before their own? What if 20 million destitute Mexicans and Canadians step over in the same week? How do we handle their care? </p>
<p>We invite 100,000s of immigrants into our country every year and offer them a path to citizenship, but we try to do it in an orderly, somewhat "fair" way, depending on the needs and abilities of our country. Why do you have a problem with this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
an extra 650 college graduates every year would have a pretty big impact on my state, especially if that means extra nurses, or extra engineers, especially in our northern regions
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a simple way to remedy the shortage of nurses and engineers without legislating an entire upheaval of immigration reform: pay them more money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All this on top of the general libertarian stance that anything less than open immigration is not amenable, for both civil and economic reasons. The primary opposition to open immigration is xenophobia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Although I agree with some of your points, I must again point out that you are using a definition of libertarianism that is quite different from what is accepted in the US. Most libertarians here do not support open immigration. </p>
<p>Many libertarian argue that since libertarianism is based on the protection of private property, and the US could be considered collective private property of its citizens, Americans have the constitutional right to forbid anyone from "trespassing."</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a simple way to remedy the shortage of nurses and engineers without legislating an entire upheaval of immigration reform: pay them more money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How about an even better way in the long run: complete privatization of the healthcare system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is a simple way to remedy the shortage of nurses and engineers without legislating an entire upheaval of immigration reform: pay them more money.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not when you already have a labour pool with artificially high incomes, due to the lack of competition and comparative advantage? Why should you oppose the economic market forces of globalisation and undermine allocative efficiency by doing so?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And it's the governments of those countries who have obligations to all of their citizens,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The problem is, are those children really citizens of that country?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I'm not the one who is arguing for a moral basis of obligation debt without any real basis or underlying theory...</p>
<p>I'm not the one who's refusing to even reevaluate the nature of citizenship and what it mean to be a member of society.</p>
<p>I'm not the one subscribing to outdated ideas about nativism, ultimate ancestry and belonging. So why don't all the countries of Europe have obligations to many current American families, to bring them home and keep them there? Why aren't they products of a safety valve? </p>
<p>I'm not the one who has had the convenience of having called throughout her life only one place "home". </p>
<p>I'm not the one who has refused to even to take a hard look at the real economics of the situation.</p>
<p>I'm not the one dismissing a genuine attempt analysis with assertion.</p>
<p>I expected better from you than to use a logical fallacy ...</p>
<p>Our main problem is that we do not have a continuum of legal statuses. E.g. you cannot have someone who is granted the rights of the "45.7% naturalised". This doesn't invalidate my argument, however. Set an arbitrary line somewhere. After all, we do the same with age of consent, do we not?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We invite 100,000s of immigrants into our country every year and offer them a path to citizenship, but we try to do it in an orderly, somewhat "fair" way, depending on the needs and abilities of our country. Why do you have a problem with this?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because it counteracts the natural forces of comparative advantage, the market and globalisation? It's something I have been stressing.</p>
<p>Political borders are becoming less and less pertinent in economics -- at most, they're seen as obstacles to the efficient flow of goods, labour and services.</p>
<p>Furthermore, market forces are not determining how people are admitted into the country -- a bureaucracy is. *It might as well be planned economics! *</p>
<p>
[quote]
What if 20 million destitute Mexicans and Canadians step over in the same week? How do we handle their care?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I tell you, if one billion children suddenly arrived in the United States, I would be (if I were somehow the economy) scrambling to take out a lot of loans to invest in them, because those are one billion future Americans. Sure, capital supply is a problem, but that's only because you only see the expense of <em>now</em> -- you don't see the future revenue of tomorrow. An extra billion Americans will generate economic returns, pay for the current social security deficit, who will then have the combined economic power to spread the best system and the best culture to the rest of the world, increasing global economic efficiency.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We already have a somewhat arbitrary line. It's called a "social security card."
<p>"I'm not the one who is arguing for a moral basis of obligation debt without any real basis or underlying theory..."</p>
<p>The underlying thing that you are missing is comprehension. You simply do not understand the issue or what is being posted. To quote you, you just "don't get it." </p>
<p>I will repeat that I think you have a very deep need for attention and have some real anger and bitterness. I wish you the very best of luck and happiness when you get to school. I sincerely hope that you bring with you a willingness to listen and learn that you haven't displayed here or on the other thread. If you bring the attitudes that you've shown to us, you could be in trouble before you get started. Please think about what I'm saying to you. I'm a parent and it would be very sad for any child's immaturity and bravado to de-rail his college career from its inception. Your arguments and points of view wouldn't be received as intellectual or insightful, but as incoherent and arrogant.</p>
<p>I have a social security card and I'm not de jure a citizen ... :) I consider myself a de facto one (the only thing stopping from fully naturalising is that I still don't know whether I should give up my Singaporean citizenship for it). </p>
<p>What I meant to ask is whether it is a testament to whether one is de facto a member of the US social contract.</p>
<p>I don't think a SS card is de facto or de jure naturalization. If by naturaliztion you mean having all the rights of citizenship, esp. voting rights, then holding a SS card does not confer this right. I believe it is possible to obtain a SS card that does not permit the holder to legally work in this country, and thus does not signify citizenship with voting rights.</p>
<p>cross-posted - this must be the type of ss card you have, gal.</p>
<p>Let me rephrase that: a SSC is given to documented American residents.</p>
<p>Your question is off the point. FORGET THE SOCIAL CONTRACT!! Kant's view of morality and the state is one of many! Not only that, but it has been interpreted hundreds of different ways! We have the constitution, not Kant or a state of nature or original position or any Rawlsian mumbo-jumbo. That's it.</p>