What right does the U.S. have in denying the poor entry into our country?

[kombu_kid]

This has been a thought on my mind for a while now, as I watch the flood of 3rd world immigrants from mostly Mexico, Central America, and China flow into the U.S., supplying a massive amount of available labor resources and suppressing wages of U.S. citizens. A lot of immigrant rights' groups will claim that these immigrants do jobs that "Americans won't do", but that is false.......just ask any construction worker. The statement should be amended to say "immigrants do jobs that Americans won't do for $6.00 an hour".

I haven't really heard this argument before, but I'm sure some left-wing wackos have questioned what right any country has to be a sovereign nation in this day and age, and to deny entry to any and all who want to enter it. Maybe it's the basic premise to the "globalism" belief/doctrine. And to take it one step further, each individual's right to private property......savings, wealth etc., when there are people in this world who are living in conditions far below ours. I guess communism touches on this.

How many people here would support a lower standard of living, a much more difficult life for themselves and especially their children, to boost the living conditions of the poor in other countries? I know the U.S. and other nations send aid to poor countries, but of course, people continue to live like dogs in many places around the globe, and a lot of it is caused by their oppressive/corrupt governments.

It's kind of strange to ponder "am I rich"? I definitely never thought I was, it's just one of those "relativity" things. As for me, I believe the U.S. should stay a strong sovereign nation with strong borders, and look out for it's own citizens #1.......which means trying to make it easier and cheaper for our children to go to college, buy a house, make a living wage, and not sell everything they own if they need to go to the hospital.

I always thought my job was safe from being sent overseas like a manufacturing job, because mine's basically a service job, but now, they've brought the "overseas" here!!

[Mad Hatter]

Smack'em... smack'em with a wet noodle.

[Ammoyankee]

Put .50 cal's along the border and hose them when inrange!

[Bones]

AC-130 gunships would be much better suited, imho. Might as well put old scrap metal to use.:D

NBTP

[okisteve]

My grandparents came to the US because they were poor and suffering in Europe.

Quick poll: did anyone here's ancestors come to America because they were rich?

[kombu_kid]

But hasn't there always been order in our immigration system, not just a free-for-all? How many other countries just allow any and all who want to "jump the fence" gain entry to their country, especially when most are uneducated/unskilled?

[okisteve]

Correct. There has been some sort of order, but it has always been very subject to discrimination and politics. For example, when Chinese were excluded, and later on Japanese. The gates were always wide open to northern Europeans, and also other Europeans when it was believed that the US needed massive immigration. Others had a long wait!

I guess I didn't understand that you were talking about illegal immigration in your OP.

[DougP]

Me thinks they let in quite a few Chinese in at one point and time, who else built the railroads?:D

But seriously a free for all would cripple America and any other country. There's not enough infrastructure in place to handle anything like it. There's barely enough as it is. Perhaps I should repost that marble/gum ball theory video.:) Its been posted before here on JU. Pretty interesting.

[okisteve]

Of course, Doug. But when they had served that purpose, slam! This is from Wikipedia:
The Chinese came to America in large numbers during the 1849 California Gold Rush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Gold_Rush) and in the 1860s when the Central Pacific Railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Pacific_Railroad) recruited large labor gangs to build its portion of the Transcontinental Railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_Railroad). Large-scale immigration continued into the late 1800s, with 123,201 Chinese recorded as arriving between 1871 and 1880, and 61,711 arriving between 1881 and 1890.
At first, when surface gold was plentiful, the Chinese were well tolerated and well-received. As gold became scarcer and competition increased, animosity to the Chinese and other foreigners increased. Organized labor groups demanded that California's gold was only for Americans, and began to physically threaten foreigners' mines or gold diggings. Most, after being forcibly driven from the mines, settled in Chinese enclaves in cities, mainly San Francisco, and took up low end wage labor such as restaurant work and laundry. With the post Civil War economy in decline by the 1870s, anti-Chinese animosity became politicized by labor leader Dennis Kearney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kearney) and his Workingman's Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workingman%27s_Party)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act_%28United_States%29#_note-0) as well as by Governor John Bigler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bigler), both of whom blamed Chinese "coolies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolies)" for depressed wage levels. Another significant anti-Chinese group organized in California during this same era was the Supreme Order of Caucasians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Order_of_Caucasians) with some 64 chapters statewide.

[DougP]

Oh yeah, no doubt. I don't think they were ever welcomed in with open arms out of love for their culture.:) Nope serve a purpose or get out seems to be the American way sometimes. But back to what I was saying, America can't logistically, theoretically, realistically speaking take everyone in. Which I'm sure that's what you're agreeing with, sorry for being redundant.:)

[Bones]

As posted by okisteve:

My grandparents came to the US because they were poor and suffering in Europe.

Quick poll: did anyone here's ancestors come to America because they were rich?

We came over from Europe, when we were poor. We had to wait a few years before we were granted access. We had to wait a few years before we were able to take a citizenship test. And we did all of that legally.

What differentiates us, from those people sneaking across the border from South America, is that we did everything that we had to do "legally".

What makes them different is:" We are are here "illegally", there is nothing that you can do about it. And we want our rights, without having to claim citizenship, without having to obey your laws, without paying taxes, and if you deny us those rights you are discriminating against us, so you have to pay us anyway."

On the other hand, what about the people who were living in America to begin with, hundreds of years before outsiders had arrived?

NBTP

[okisteve]

As I recall, the quotas for all countries were very, very low up until about 15 -20 years ago, when a lot of political refugees were admitted, and then the restrictions were relaxed for other countries. I imagine there are still rules - you get an immigrant visa fast if you are a doctor or a software engineer or have close family here. Details don't matter because they can be changed anytime, but the point is that the congress needs to make up its mind about whether we need cheap labor enough to legalize immigration for those people (again).