Integration of the western hemisphere would eliminate the problem however, consider this. Read about the in depth issues that are being encountered by the EU before wishing this to proceed. The open integration would resolve the immigration issue however it would also provide free access into the US and free outflow of all monies out of the US without an balanced return. East and West Germany, for example, are still going through this political and economic problem. All easterners that could, fled to former West Germany, throwing the German economy into mass confusion with the influx of cheap labor. The set the German economy back almost 10 years and while it outwardly looks to have recovered is still dealing with repercussions. Also, with few attempts to invest in the former East Germany, there is an economic vacuum that has been left there. How does this benefit those who could not flee? Nobody wants to go there because of the poor infrastructure and pollution, legacies of the communist government days.
This is true, so far the costs of reunification are anywhere between 200 billion and 2 trillion Dollars, depending on how it is counted. However the infrastructure has now been mostly restored and in many places is even better than in the west, pollution has also been cleared up. The problem might be that most jobs are created by middle sized buisnesses, which rely on local purchasing power, so when there is low population density and people are mostly poor (on welfare) then those buisnesses will not go there, you might still attract some large companies, but those dont create that many jobs.There's also the problem of a generally shrinking population, since the birthrate is very low (1.3 children per woman).
I think the integration of Mexico and the US into a north american union would be comparable with the integration of eastern Europe into the EU. Currently the universal work permit for EU citizens does not aplly to people from eastern Europe, to prevent the western economies from beeing flooded by cheap labour, this will expire in 2009 I think. There is currently a discussion agoing on on how to resolve this issue, the most obvious solution is strict(er) enforcement of minimum wage regulations and more controls to check if the people at a certain work place are actually employed there legally, though there is the questions if this will be enough, and of course the problem that big buisness does not want these regulations enforced, they just want cheap labour.
Originally Posted by FranG
But by accepting them illegally or by accepting a quantity larger than economically feasible exploits us. American citizens lose at their gain, but the "super" capitalists (not the small business owner) wins. One can argue that maybe that's morally acceptable but I'm silent on that point.
Yes, actually big buisness is exploiting you and them, which means that you need to force them to act in a way that puts an end to this and actually benefits the economy and therefor the people, instead of only them. The best way to do this would be through governement regulation, or as you would probabyl argue, through a more deregulated market. Personally I dont believe that market forces can be trusted to produce the desirable outcome, so I would be in favour of government intervention here, which might not be possible though because government is already to much intervined with big buisness.
What I'm saying is that you need to strictly prosecute those who employ illigal immigrants, and take away from them any money they have made by employing them, so that if Mexicans are unable to find work, they will not come. Oh and you will also have to create conditions that will allow Americans to actually make a living from those jobs, so that they can take the place of the illegal immigrants.
Though a EU style confederation might also work, in the past the EU was able to integrate countries that were quite poor and only had poor infrastructure, like Portugal, Spain, Greece, and now almost all of eastern Europe.
It seems unfortunate that so much money is invested into China who stands small chance of being our long-term ally. Based on the fragments of info I have, I would support providing those same jobs in Mexico. The best way to secure ones borders is to make strong ally with those on the other side. Think of the crisis if there is ever another world war and Mexico were the U.S.'s enemy? Of course Mexico has resources to offer. It is only a matter of drawing out those resources into mutual exchange.
The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas. H.G. WELLS
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. FEYNMAN If this is monkey pee, you're on your own.SCULLY
I'm referring to the same line of reasoning that I began with; which means the year 1850 (or somewhere around there). And I'm pretty sure that taking property has never been an "accepted principle." Regardless, I expected the ethics that you began with to be universal and constant.
Good strategy. But it's an impossible challenge when the house that was once yours is now under the protection and laws of a Nation that is not your own, but rather, it is that of the Nation that displaced you and annexed your property. Therefore, you would now be "illegal" in your own country.
Precisely. Likewise, Mexico had immigration policies in the 1840's that were circumvented by US residents that decided to move into Texas, which was then the sovereign Nation of Mexico. Hence, again, the situations seem quite similar to me.
I'd rather not speculate on what may or may not be policy. Because when it comes to undisclosed policies, the US government will certainly have several such policies to counter whatever the Mexican government may or may not be devising.
Now you're smelling what I'm cooking.
I still don't buy your argument that two wrongs make a right. The way you have presented your arguments I take it to mean that you would argue for allowing nations the world over to take unethical and immoral actions against those who wronged them; Germany, England, North African nations, Spain, Greece, the Middle East, could act against Italy because the Roman Empire appropriated their lands and enslaved their people. Africans could take actions against America, Mexico, Spain, England, Portugal, even each other because of the seizure of their lands and citizens as slaves. Simply letting people disregard laws would let anarchy, chaos, and war run rampant through the world as there would be no common grounds for behavior and no bridges between social moralities.
If immigrants CAN enter the country legally and prove that they are trustworthy and law abiding citizens of the world, why can't the others? If the legal citizens want to involve themselves in politics to change the legal system from within so that the laws are more open for the others, they are welcome to do so. But for people to force themselves into situations contrary to the internal rule of a law of ANY nation, does not make for ethical or moral citizens.
It's not a simple case of the Catergorical Imperative; Even Kant himself said that any action taken by one that could not be possible consented to by another is a violation of the perfect duty if you want to apply that philosophy.
I still assert that illegal immigrants, by their willful defiance of the immigration laws of the US are action immorally and unethically. Citing historical wrongs performed against them by the US does not justify their actions when they are wrong too.
Originally Posted by Haight
Well I'm Jewish, so you're not going to get any sympathy from me.
I don't ask for sympathy; I only ask to be treated with the same respect and dignity that should be due any human being.