We’re seeing an increasing number of people suggesting that we should have completely open borders and no restrictions on immigration. This seems irresponsible, because there are clearly people who would like to cross our borders who would not be positive additions to our nation. This notion goes back quite some time.
Last year, when going through some things at my mom’s house, we found a fascinating immigration document from my grandfather. He came into the country as a child in the early 1900’s ( thank goodness I can’t be held responsible for my slave owning ancestors on that side), but when he was an adult he had to sign a document that affirmed the following three things;
1. That he renounced any affiliation with the queen/king of England.
2. That he wasn’t personally or part of a religion or sect that advocated polygamy.
3. That he wasn’t an anarchist.
On the one hand, the last two are kind of amusing. On the other hand, the concept that we expect immigrants to renounce their allegiance to their country of origin and replace it with allegiance to the US, and that we expect some adherence to the societal norms, seem like reasonable expectations for those who immigrate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'm not entirely sure where I fall on the question of open borders. Determining who would "be positive additions to our nation" seems like a daunting task. (Many of the people that came before as immigrants and succeeded greatly would probably have been thought of as not positive additions.) I can see that there would be negative additions -- enemies of the State -- so that would necessarily limit completely open borders, I would think.
In all of the immigration concerns thus far my only current concern is the "illegal" aspect. When we as a nation can address that issue, I can move on. We are not.
My point is that we’ve historically placed some limits on immigration, (amusing as they might seem now), and that removing any limits is the height of foolishness. It seems reasonable that rational people can come to an agreement over what those limits should be.
I've read articles describing the types of questions asked of immigrants entering through Ellis Island, and they mostly seemed to be denying entry to those who were seen as "negative additions", including people with certain illnesses. It shouldn't be too hard to determine some set of criteria whereby we can make such determinations.
But the whole notion of open borders is blatantly problematic if there is no discussion of regs of any kind. There has to be something because the general welfare of the nation is affected by who gets in and how many.
On top of that is the plan to secure the border. If we were to have a Great Wall of China set up along our borders, that isn't a "closed" border at all if we still have a "gate" through which people are let in and out. It's simply a regulated border, and the open borders crowd does not seem to want even that. It's as if they don't believe it will affect them personally, so why not? Let 'em all in. Too many horror stories to regard such proponents as actual adults.
The 620 million people who cross the US border yearly puts the lie to the notion and f a closed border.
It just seems reasonable that there would be criteria for immigration beyond simply race/country of origin.
I’m not saying I’m a fan, but Trump offered 3 times as many people an actual path to citizenship last night, and the DFL doesn’t seem supportive. A better deal for more people than P-BO and they’re still playing politics.
(Pssst! Craig! What is the "DFL"? All I can find is "Democratic Farmers League". Pretty sure that's not what you have in mind.)
It’s the local acronym for the Democrats, it’s a combination of easier and assimilation to the people’s republic.
I’m wondering when we’ll see the attacks on Tanzania for increasing their border security.
Post a Comment