Illegal Immigration/Invasion

[nietzsche]

Just a story that the Prime Minister made a recent reform on.

Excuse me, but that's not enough of an argument, at least for me. They could write a book, then a movie and I would not stop being critical about it.

[shickingbrits]

Perhaps Mexico needs some competition from Filipino labour.

[nietzsche]

Perhaps Mexico needs some competition from Filipino labour.

Lol.

Why don't you discuss the merits of your arguments instead?


I do not deny anyone's right to say "I want it this way because I want it this way". But if you then accompany that desire with arguments, trying to make it reasonable, in a public forum, then you are at risk of others criticizing your arguments.

That you want something doesn't mean that it's the right thing for everyone, or even the best thing for you and yours overtime. It will depend on how your psyche is constructed, your fears, etc. You could want to kill everyone under 5'6" and create wonderful arguments for it. I mean, a person with that desire would.

I imagine you didn't even notice the counterargument of the extra profit having potential to create more wealth at the moment you were typing your story. That is because, you didn't want to, you had a desire to drive across a point and focused on it. If, we were talking about a less emotional topic, say analytic geometry, you wouldn't have missed that clear of a point.

[shickingbrits]

What additional wealth? Those restaurants were going to do the same amount of business either way. That the business owner saves a couple bucks does not create wealth. Perhaps in Mexico it is quite easy to open a pub, in Canada not so much. In my rural setting you can't do much to encourage or discourage people from your business because their aren't too many options. There is no reason for the wealthy doctors who own the pubs to spend the the $9600 they save per employee, and subway pays everyone minimum wage, so there is zero "wealth creation".

While reducing local employment, local salaries, any wealth created does not revert back to society. Just sending the $700 per month already disposes of the additional wealth and the decreased tax dollars more than make up for the rest. Meanwhile there is now a handout that the government has to engage in that wasn't there before.

If your idea by "wealth creation" is that an already wealthy guy got a bit more money at the taxpayers cost, then sure its a counterargument. But not one worth considering.

[BigBallinStalin]

Just a story that the Prime Minister made a recent reform on.

BBS, you don't understand anything so far as I've noticed. You mainly spout economic doctrine of the sort that was spouted by those who created the current economy of the US. Why would I listen to any of your nonsense when I can go to just about any fast food joint and get served by a Filipino?

Seriously, it's up to you to learn more. If you understood my economic approach better, you'd agree with me that it is not mainstream nor has it led to the current political economy of the US.

[BigBallinStalin]

Those are good points in general, and I won't speak for Bricks, but as for me, I am not saying that the things I see and what I know to be true is the way everything else is, not even close. I'm simply saying what I see and what I know are true things and cannot be denied. That is not to say what I see wand what I know is the overall picture of everything everywhere related. So, not sure how that pertains to SB, but it does not pertain to me. My previous post, the one with the sign warning Americans not to go into that part of American territory because there is no law and order to protect/rescue/defend/enforce....I typed 'just one results of.....' The whole welfare and handout and exploitation and overall fleecing of the American taxpayer is likewise just another reality. I am not saying that is true of every single illegal immigrant, but my opposition IS pretending like the reality does not exist. I say that it does. And about similar realities concerning wages, culture, land-entitlement, economy, fairness, respect for law and order, heritage, assimilation, drug/human smuggling....They are all turning into a large pile of evidence to the contrary, a pile that rarely is addressed and primarily shrugged off. I'm not saying you don't have a point BBS, it's probably just that we place different things at different levels on our own priorities and what we think is more important.

Overall, what the hell do you and I disagree on concerning immigration policy anyways? What do you disagree with me about?? Don't take this time to exaggerate a bunch of BS claims about 'me denying a foreigner their God given right to American wages' or 'you don't have a heart' because I'm not gonna type a paragraph setting it straight and therefore taking the discussion further off the point de-jour. Maybe try to respond with less about me, and more about what you think and feel. Speak about the issue if you would.

Good response. Let's get a debate underway:

What's your ideal immigration policy?

After responding, I'll tell you where you and I differ, okay?

[nietzsche]

What additional wealth? Those restaurants were going to do the same amount of business either way. That the business owner saves a couple bucks does not create wealth. Perhaps in Mexico it is quite easy to open a pub, in Canada not so much. In my rural setting you can't do much to encourage or discourage people from your business because their aren't too many options. There is no reason for the wealthy doctors who own the pubs to spend the the $9600 they save per employee, and subway pays everyone minimum wage, so there is zero "wealth creation".

While reducing local employment, local salaries, any wealth created does not revert back to society. Just sending the $700 per month already disposes of the additional wealth and the decreased tax dollars more than make up for the rest. Meanwhile there is now a handout that the government has to engage in that wasn't there before.

If your idea by "wealth creation" is that an already wealthy guy got a bit more money at the taxpayers cost, then sure its a counterargument. But not one worth considering.

Your argument is an emotional one. You are focused in one way things can work, not necessarily the way they always work out.

Say you're right about this particular case (which I doubt), does that mean it always work that way? What about the case of a Filipino plumber who will do things better for half the price? No doubt he'll put other plumbers in a crisis in a small town, to what they have to adjust.

Also, keeping costs down will allow international companies to have more competitive prices that would make them prosper. These companies will do better, and so will their employees. Joe the bartender will face a challenge and might end up redirecting his career to get a better job at this more competitive international company.

I'm just presenting you with scenarios that show it's not as straightforward as you think it is. I'm not well educated in economics, but I can see who's right when I see BBS counterargument your theory.

[shickingbrits]

BBS hasn't counterargued anything.

He countered that wealth is being generated. I have given two different, concrete and typical real world activities in Canada that represent how this is working. In neither of them is there any benefit but a significant loss. If your theory is to let the people in my community and country suffer so McDs has tamer staff, then it would be rather ridiculous of me to listen.

The EU has been enjoying the benefits of a mobile labour market. Ask a German what they think of BBS economic BS. Economists can't agree with each other on anything in their pseudo-science.

And what do I care for an international companies monopolizing markets worldwide? I thought Walmart sucked and I still think it sucks. They aren't letting plumbers in. So much for your theory that BBS had a solid theory.

[BigBallinStalin]

What additional wealth? Those restaurants were going to do the same amount of business either way. That the business owner saves a couple bucks does not create wealth. Perhaps in Mexico it is quite easy to open a pub, in Canada not so much. In my rural setting you can't do much to encourage or discourage people from your business because their aren't too many options. There is no reason for the wealthy doctors who own the pubs to spend the the $9600 they save per employee, and subway pays everyone minimum wage, so there is zero "wealth creation".

While reducing local employment, local salaries, any wealth created does not revert back to society. Just sending the $700 per month already disposes of the additional wealth and the decreased tax dollars more than make up for the rest. Meanwhile there is now a handout that the government has to engage in that wasn't there before.

If your idea by "wealth creation" is that an already wealthy guy got a bit more money at the taxpayers cost, then sure its a counterargument. But not one worth considering.

Understand the respect of property rights. You reject how people spend or gift their wealth. If that policy is enacted in some city, then less people are likely to join that city--all else being equal. Your policy results in denying people a certain range of benefits. In turn, you create inefficiency within that area (people won't move there, they won't provide their cheaper and equally productive labor, and you'll pay the higher price for goods), etc.

Deny people the freedom to use their money and you won't get the "Filipinos." Instead, you'll be spending MORE your income on lesser productive workers who can get a higher price for their labor. Your real income decreases, thus you'll destroy potential wealth.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS hasn't counterargued anything.

He countered that wealth is being generated. I have given two different, concrete and typical real world activities in Canada that represent how this is working. In neither of them is there any benefit but a significant loss. If your theory is to let the people in my community and country suffer so McDs has tamer staff, then it would be rather ridiculous of me to listen.

The EU has been enjoying the benefits of a mobile labour market. Ask a German what they think of BBS economic BS. Economists can't agree with each other on anything in their pseudo-science.

And what do I care for an international companies monopolizing markets worldwide? I thought Walmart sucked and I still think it sucks. They aren't letting plumbers in. So much for your theory that BBS had a solid theory.

Demonstrate to us that you are not a troll.

[Neoteny]

To be fair, the study of economics, like skeletons, is not real.

[AndyDufresne]

BBS hasn't counterargued anything.

He countered that wealth is being generated. I have given two different, concrete and typical real world activities in Canada that represent how this is working. In neither of them is there any benefit but a significant loss. If your theory is to let the people in my community and country suffer so McDs has tamer staff, then it would be rather ridiculous of me to listen.

The EU has been enjoying the benefits of a mobile labour market. Ask a German what they think of BBS economic BS. Economists can't agree with each other on anything in their pseudo-science.

And what do I care for an international companies monopolizing markets worldwide? I thought Walmart sucked and I still think it sucks. They aren't letting plumbers in. So much for your theory that BBS had a solid theory.

Demonstrate to us that you are not a troll.

--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

The whole welfare and handout and exploitation and overall fleecing of the American taxpayer is likewise just another reality. I am not saying that is true of every single illegal immigrant, but my opposition IS pretending like the reality does not exist. I say that it does.

What do you want us to do? If we accept that we should not let immigrants in because some of them might commit crimes, should we stop letting Americans have babies because some of them might commit crimes too?

[shickingbrits]

What additional wealth? Those restaurants were going to do the same amount of business either way. That the business owner saves a couple bucks does not create wealth. Perhaps in Mexico it is quite easy to open a pub, in Canada not so much. In my rural setting you can't do much to encourage or discourage people from your business because their aren't too many options. There is no reason for the wealthy doctors who own the pubs to spend the the $9600 they save per employee, and subway pays everyone minimum wage, so there is zero "wealth creation".

While reducing local employment, local salaries, any wealth created does not revert back to society. Just sending the $700 per month already disposes of the additional wealth and the decreased tax dollars more than make up for the rest. Meanwhile there is now a handout that the government has to engage in that wasn't there before.

If your idea by "wealth creation" is that an already wealthy guy got a bit more money at the taxpayers cost, then sure its a counterargument. But not one worth considering.

Understand the respect of property rights. You reject how people spend or gift their wealth. If that policy is enacted in some city, then less people are likely to join that city--all else being equal. Your policy results in denying people a certain range of benefits. In turn, you create inefficiency within that area (people won't move there, they won't provide their cheaper and equally productive labor, and you'll pay the higher price for goods), etc.

Deny people the freedom to use their money and you won't get the "Filipinos." Instead, you'll be spending MORE your income on lesser productive workers who can get a higher price for their labor. Your real income decreases, thus you'll destroy potential wealth.

When Joe makes $16 an hour after working ten years in the community he grew up in, he will be spending all of it. He is doing only slightly better than minimum wage. All of that income goes to goods and services provided by the other members of the community. He might send a gift to Montreal, have a Netflix account and the credit card he is using is based out of Toronto, but were we to record all of Joe's expenses, it would mainly be his daily needs. It would be to buy groceries, rent a place and pay the bills, have his car fixed, buy some goat cheese and a new parka and beaver skin hat. Joe lives there, will expect to live there and is likely going to acquire some property there. In general, his savings if any will also be spent there.

The grocer, hatter, mechanic will have work because he is working and can pay them to work. They in turn can pay for such services and the economy is born.

Jack spends only 1/3 of that in the community and the pub owner saves about 1/3 of that. Instead of $16 dollars recirculating and driving the local economy, only $5.5 is being spent locally. Jack has no need or interest in acquiring property here because his visa offers no path to residency. He cannot bring his family here and even if he could, the $5 that is being saved by the pub owner is not being circulated. In the case of Subway, that $5 is not even being saved.

As a member of the community in which this takes place, I am more interested in seeing our actions leading to our overall prosperity. The more people with jobs here, the less the need for government handouts, security and the more services and goods available. If you equate this to "Understand the respect of property rights. You reject how people spend or gift their wealth" then you probably need an intervention.

Society does not have the imperative to ensure that any individual becomes wealthy. At least in Canada, we don't expect our government to sit around discussing how to make a wealthy pub owner more wealthy. We don't expect them to discuss how they can obfuscate the employment records by listing employment of non-residents.

What I expect when I pay my taxes is for them to be put towards the benefit of the community in which I live. I don't expect them to enact policies which are going to add to the debt burden. When Joe loses his job, I pay the government to collect my taxes, to set up a network to pay Joe and pay Joe. There is no promise that Joe will or can find another job. He cannot invest in property. The Filipino cannot invest in property. Joe begins to detract from the community and I've just paid so that it may be so.

I would hope that a Subway job goes to a kid who has the fortitude to pay their way through college, a pothead who considers it their dream job, a middle-aged divorcee who will not live dejectedly. I would hope that that college student had gained some real world experience and stayed away from student debt so that they are free to engage their learning and experience as they see fit.

But when I see Subway full of Filipinos, I think, there's my tax money at work keeping that pothead at home, that student in debt and that divorcee in gloom.

When I see a mine being operated by an international company using government funded equipment on public lands to extract "wealth" with Chinese labour and just so happens to destroy the environment, I think, please let my government be judged according to the results and not BBS's turret's driven affection for fairytales told in biased graphs. If you want to apply your theories to the situation, put 13% unemployment into a region with 50,000 people and then add 600 jobs made available to Filipinos that could have been accommodated locally except that Filipinos are less complaining (at least the ones picked to come here) and are sometimes cheaper.

Graph the income received through the mine with the cost of operating it. There will be pockets of "wealth" creation but not the public's. There were emptied filling the few directly and indirectly. When the proposal for the mining operation was put forth to the government, the taxpayer is presented with this picture:

we supply land and equipment, they hire a lot of people to work it, we split the profits, but all the money is being spent here anyway which is good for the economy. we take joint responsibility of environmental impact.

In this example, the only wealth being created is the spending of the hired workers and the tax placed on the profits and employee salaries. The source of the mine could be held in a pristine condition, forgo the environmental risk, and later accessed when it was beneficial to the community.

In hiring Chinese miners, the tax on the income drops significantly. At minimum wage the government will get a dollar or so in taxes per labour hour. In hiring a Canadian, the income tax would raise to at least ten, the person would be engaging in the local economy paying road, school and other service taxes and be off of unemployment payments. The spending of the hired workers is nixed and the income tax and other taxes received are diminished to about 5%. We could look at the profits of the company, but I would expect that we would not be in full receipt of our share there either. As such, the entire "wealth" of the enterprise ceases to materialize.

So the equation has become more like this:

Trust the government to hold a company, that they've allowed to profit at the expense of the public and the environment, accountable to the public and environment which they have already allowed them to exploit and which many provisions in Canada's "free trade" agreements prevent from happening.

I'm beginning to see your concept of "wealth" creation. Its fraud perpetrated on the masses. This is not "denying people to use their money" it's "preventing mass public fraud". I can see that you are against it. Surprise, surprise.

[BigBallinStalin]

To be fair, the study of economics, like skeletons, is not real.

[BigBallinStalin]

What additional wealth? Those restaurants were going to do the same amount of business either way. That the business owner saves a couple bucks does not create wealth. Perhaps in Mexico it is quite easy to open a pub, in Canada not so much. In my rural setting you can't do much to encourage or discourage people from your business because their aren't too many options. There is no reason for the wealthy doctors who own the pubs to spend the the $9600 they save per employee, and subway pays everyone minimum wage, so there is zero "wealth creation".

While reducing local employment, local salaries, any wealth created does not revert back to society. Just sending the $700 per month already disposes of the additional wealth and the decreased tax dollars more than make up for the rest. Meanwhile there is now a handout that the government has to engage in that wasn't there before.

If your idea by "wealth creation" is that an already wealthy guy got a bit more money at the taxpayers cost, then sure its a counterargument. But not one worth considering.

Understand the respect of property rights. You reject how people spend or gift their wealth. If that policy is enacted in some city, then less people are likely to join that city--all else being equal. Your policy results in denying people a certain range of benefits. In turn, you create inefficiency within that area (people won't move there, they won't provide their cheaper and equally productive labor, and you'll pay the higher price for goods), etc.

Deny people the freedom to use their money and you won't get the "Filipinos." Instead, you'll be spending MORE your income on lesser productive workers who can get a higher price for their labor. Your real income decreases, thus you'll destroy potential wealth.

[nietzsche]

What additional wealth? Those restaurants were going to do the same amount of business either way. That the business owner saves a couple bucks does not create wealth. Perhaps in Mexico it is quite easy to open a pub, in Canada not so much. In my rural setting you can't do much to encourage or discourage people from your business because their aren't too many options. There is no reason for the wealthy doctors who own the pubs to spend the the $9600 they save per employee, and subway pays everyone minimum wage, so there is zero "wealth creation".

While reducing local employment, local salaries, any wealth created does not revert back to society. Just sending the $700 per month already disposes of the additional wealth and the decreased tax dollars more than make up for the rest. Meanwhile there is now a handout that the government has to engage in that wasn't there before.

If your idea by "wealth creation" is that an already wealthy guy got a bit more money at the taxpayers cost, then sure its a counterargument. But not one worth considering.

Understand the respect of property rights. You reject how people spend or gift their wealth. If that policy is enacted in some city, then less people are likely to join that city--all else being equal. Your policy results in denying people a certain range of benefits. In turn, you create inefficiency within that area (people won't move there, they won't provide their cheaper and equally productive labor, and you'll pay the higher price for goods), etc.

Deny people the freedom to use their money and you won't get the "Filipinos." Instead, you'll be spending MORE your income on lesser productive workers who can get a higher price for their labor. Your real income decreases, thus you'll destroy potential wealth.

When Joe makes $16 an hour after working ten years in the community he grew up in, he will be spending all of it. He is doing only slightly better than minimum wage. All of that income goes to goods and services provided by the other members of the community. He might send a gift to Montreal, have a Netflix account and the credit card he is using is based out of Toronto, but were we to record all of Joe's expenses, it would mainly be his daily needs. It would be to buy groceries, rent a place and pay the bills, have his car fixed, buy some goat cheese and a new parka and beaver skin hat. Joe lives there, will expect to live there and is likely going to acquire some property there. In general, his savings if any will also be spent there.

The grocer, hatter, mechanic will have work because he is working and can pay them to work. They in turn can pay for such services and the economy is born.

Jack spends only 1/3 of that in the community and the pub owner saves about 1/3 of that. Instead of $16 dollars recirculating and driving the local economy, only $5.5 is being spent locally. Jack has no need or interest in acquiring property here because his visa offers no path to residency. He cannot bring his family here and even if he could, the $5 that is being saved by the pub owner is not being circulated. In the case of Subway, that $5 is not even being saved.

As a member of the community in which this takes place, I am more interested in seeing our actions leading to our overall prosperity. The more people with jobs here, the less the need for government handouts, security and the more services and goods available. If you equate this to "Understand the respect of property rights. You reject how people spend or gift their wealth" then you probably need an intervention.

Society does not have the imperative to ensure that any individual becomes wealthy. At least in Canada, we don't expect our government to sit around discussing how to make a wealthy pub owner more wealthy. We don't expect them to discuss how they can obfuscate the employment records by listing employment of non-residents.

What I expect when I pay my taxes is for them to be put towards the benefit of the community in which I live. I don't expect them to enact policies which are going to add to the debt burden. When Joe loses his job, I pay the government to collect my taxes, to set up a network to pay Joe and pay Joe. There is no promise that Joe will or can find another job. He cannot invest in property. The Filipino cannot invest in property. Joe begins to detract from the community and I've just paid so that it may be so.

I would hope that a Subway job goes to a kid who has the fortitude to pay their way through college, a pothead who considers it their dream job, a middle-aged divorcee who will not live dejectedly. I would hope that that college student had gained some real world experience and stayed away from student debt so that they are free to engage their learning and experience as they see fit.

But when I see Subway full of Filipinos, I think, there's my tax money at work keeping that pothead at home, that student in debt and that divorcee in gloom.

When I see a mine being operated by an international company using government funded equipment on public lands to extract "wealth" with Chinese labour and just so happens to destroy the environment, I think, please let my government be judged according to the results and not BBS's turret's driven affection for fairytales told in biased graphs. If you want to apply your theories to the situation, put 13% unemployment into a region with 50,000 people and then add 600 jobs made available to Filipinos that could have been accommodated locally except that Filipinos are less complaining (at least the ones picked to come here) and are sometimes cheaper.

Graph the income received through the mine with the cost of operating it. There will be pockets of "wealth" creation but not the public's. There were emptied filling the few directly and indirectly. When the proposal for the mining operation was put forth to the government, the taxpayer is presented with this picture:

we supply land and equipment, they hire a lot of people to work it, we split the profits, but all the money is being spent here anyway which is good for the economy. we take joint responsibility of environmental impact.

In this example, the only wealth being created is the spending of the hired workers and the tax placed on the profits and employee salaries. The source of the mine could be held in a pristine condition, forgo the environmental risk, and later accessed when it was beneficial to the community.

In hiring Chinese miners, the tax on the income drops significantly. At minimum wage the government will get a dollar or so in taxes per labour hour. In hiring a Canadian, the income tax would raise to at least ten, the person would be engaging in the local economy paying road, school and other service taxes and be off of unemployment payments. The spending of the hired workers is nixed and the income tax and other taxes received are diminished to about 5%. We could look at the profits of the company, but I would expect that we would not be in full receipt of our share there either. As such, the entire "wealth" of the enterprise ceases to materialize.

So the equation has become more like this:

Trust the government to hold a company, that they've allowed to profit at the expense of the public and the environment, accountable to the public and environment which they have already allowed them to exploit and which many provisions in Canada's "free trade" agreements prevent from happening.

I'm beginning to see your concept of "wealth" creation. Its fraud perpetrated on the masses. This is not "denying people to use their money" it's "preventing mass public fraud". I can see that you are against it. Surprise, surprise.

That is a good rant. There there.


Tunnel vision is impeding you to see the whole reality. It's unhealthy, one of the symptoms of depression is that you only see one possible, dark future. I'm not suggesting you are depressed, but I'm suggesting you can be more clear minded.

For instance, what about all these things made in China (or made with things made in China) that abound in your town? Are they evil as well? And all that beer consumed at the town! If only it was produced in the town! And those cars imported from the US, I'm sure they could be built in town too.

"Oh boy, things are changing! It must be bad because we don't know how to adapt!" Well, if you keep worrying over it, when the time for a decision to be made arrives you while have been obsessing with how things will go bad that you won't be able to see any other path.

Fear will always be a bad counselor. Other than helping trigger you to flee when a tiger is chasing you, in our current world is pretty much useless. Stop fearing Filipinos, except the ones that are boxers.

[shickingbrits]

Cars? plastic toys? Catch up to the times, we will be moving beyond such waste of resources shortly.

[PLAYER57832]

Immigration is crucial to development of culture and society as a whole. The focus should be in having strong principles as foundations of every society, in the most basic things as respect for each other’s life and protection of the vulnerable (children, older, the sick) instead of blocking borders to avoid something that cannot, (nor should be) avoided

Except, your basic assumption is incorrect. Not every society has the same things as its foundation. There is a huge difference between, for example, the state of Israel, the state of Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and the US.

Its ironic, but in advocating cultural diversity, you are actually ignoring the very real and serious differences that exist. Frankly, I don't want to be any of those countries listed. I don't particularly want to be Mexico, either. Yet.. if we continue to allow huge numbers of those people to come without any qualifications, without any restrictions, then that IS what we will become. That is the real risk here.

Not every society has its very same things as foundations, but there is certain things that should be in all the cultures, like respect for each others life.

There are miles of difference between what "should be", what we all might wish were true, and what is. The fact is that not all cultures do respect al l human life. Women, in particular, are often very much NOT respected.. or rather they are "respected" so much that they have to be confined in tiny prisons lest they be "contaminated" by outside influence!

[Which, as a culture, has a foundation the killing of each other?

Wrong question, because the first step is establishing that "they" are NOT "us". So, see, you pick out some small difference and then they are no longer part of "your" culture. And that very much IS a foundation of many cultures!

That focus on "we" against "them" is the origin of a lot of world conflicts, and one of the reasons that "we" as specie, keep being violent and cruel among each others.

Yes, along with the facts of people wanting more land, resources and just plain power than they have. Pretend otherwise to folly.

There is a reason behind why,as society, we chose to respect life, instead of the opposite.

WE, get it.. WE choose that. Just because WE choose democracy, diversity and religious freedom in no way, shape or form means others make that same choice. Are you truly going to suggest that Israel, a stanch ally of ours, or Saudis Arabia - another ally, respect ALL of those values? For that matter, several arguing against me claiming "freedom" also show extreme disdain for religion, as a whole.

[Now, you mentioned that don't want to be Mexico. Probably the Sioux didn't want to be "american" neither. That didn't stop the first english and dutch settlers to populate that part of the world, imposing a culture and a set of principles.

So its OK to repeat that? We are not talking about the Sioux repopulating the US, or the Navaho, etc. (with a few notable exceptions). ALSO, we are talking about the fact that they way this particular immigration has happened is among the worst possible ways. We basically require folks to either wait so long they take decades to get here OR all but force people to be outright criminals.. do deals with drug lords and the like.. to come here.

We do have a still somewhat open border for highly skilled, college educated folks, particularly "techies" and a few other exceptions, but those exceptions are not the ones folks are hollering about. Nor are the representative of the majority of non-US born people here now.

[Cultural movility is desirable. We just have to agree in very basic global things as foundations of each society, and keep the cultural hues for the rest, as food, family values, religion, and so forth.

Nice, but just how are you going to make sure that happens? And how are we going to deal with the current issues in the mean time?

Behind all those worlds, face one stark fact. The REAL foundation of freedom of ideas and tolerance is economic security. People who have enough to eat, have shelter and decent clothing find it much easier to be tolerant than people who think their job and security are at risk. Also, it doesn't really matter if people in Afghanistan live happily in mud huts, here people expect more... and get angry when they see illegal immigrants having what they do not have.

That type of anger is not going to be solved by waving flags of unity or nice speeches about "respect".