Common Anti-Immigrant Arguments Debunked (i hope)

[andrewh817]

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency within the freedom movement about immigration. Hopefully this thread will highlight some of those inconsistencies. If you disagree, I'd prefer if you actually quote my post and tell me what you disagree with or find questionable so I can defend my arguments.



With any question about immigration or immigrants, anyone who with a valid opinion must answer these 3 questions.

1. Is it immoral to pay an illegal immigrant in exchange for a service?
2. Is it immoral to pay a human in exchange for a service?
3. What is the objective difference between an illegal immigrant and a human?

1 and 2 are going to vary based on who's answering the question. As for 3........

There's no genetic difference. There's a difference in where you were born, yes, but it's only on a different spot on Earth. Countries, governments, and borders are all IDEAS. You can't love a country. You can't shake hands with the government. Borders don't exist without man.

Since there's no significant genetic difference (in the brain) between humans, is there an objective difference between an immigrant and a citizen?
By objective I mean, by looking at someone, can you tell whether or not they're a citizen? If not, can you tell by doing a chemical test/brain scan?

If the answer is no, then there is no objective difference.




Common arguments...............Assume "they" refers to illegal immigrants or immigrants in general.

"They just want to turn the US into Mexico!"

Well, if they like the way Mexico is, why are they moving?! Why would they go through the trouble of quitting their job (if they have one) and uprooting their family all to move to a foreign country so they can make it more like the place they left? Doesn't sound cost-effective. And I'm glad to have never seen this argument on these forums.

"They're just going to come here and vote for more social programs!"

Well, last time I checked, illegal immigrants CAN'T VOTE! So that statement doesn't apply to illegals. As for the legal immigrants, if they're law-abiding and using the democratic process, what's your problem with them?

Sounds more like a problem with what they're voting for, rather than the fact that they're immigrants. There's plenty of citizens voting for more social programs right now......... see "Baby Boomers!" Are you against the ideology, or the fact that they were born on a different patch of Earth? Make up your mind!

"They're just going to come here and underbid all the Americans for jobs!"

Well, I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume you believe the free market is the best way to do business. If you don't I'd rather not prove that here, as there's plenty of examples in the real world and on these forums already.

And if the free market is the best way to do business, that doesn't change just because someone came from a different area. That doesn't change just because YOU might have to work for less. That's all a part of market forces........

If there are people (immigrants or not) willing to work for $9.00/hr on a job that pays $12.00/hr then $9.00/hr is the right wage. If your business goes from a workforce of 50 people at $12.00/hr to a workforce of 50 people at $9.00/hr, that's a difference of $150!

What happens to the $150 dollars you save?

1. You keep the money yourself....... save or spend it on things you need.
2. You invest the money in your business, which eventually cuts costs thus increasing profits.
3. You use some of the $150 as an incentive for your workers. If they're all working for $9.00/hr, you can offer the $150 bonus to the best employee. This will not only increase productivity, but will also improve costumer satisfaction in the service at your business, since people have an incentive to do more than the minimum!
4. Lower your prices to balance the $150 out!

I'm well aware of the minimum wage laws, and this example applies to those too. It may not be legal to pay below minimum wage, but it can increase productivity in the business.

Tell me what doesn't make sense in this post! Use quotes!

[Pennsylvania]

Agree on all points but would just like to point out that the below argument is usually made by opponents of amnesty, rather than opponents of open-borders per se, which are two distinct issues (I always feel the need to emphasize this point). Opponents of amnesty argue that a large new segment of the electorate would be largely more liberal than they, and should therefore not be allowed citizenship. The point has merit, but is principally an argument against non-participatory democracy than anything else.

"They're just going to come here and vote for more social programs!"

Well, last time I checked, illegal immigrants CAN'T VOTE! So that statement doesn't apply to illegals. As for the legal immigrants, if they're law-abiding and using the democratic process, what's your problem with them?

Sounds more like a problem with what they're voting for, rather than the fact that they're immigrants. There's plenty of citizens voting for more social programs right now......... see "Baby Boomers!" Are you against the ideology, or the fact that they were born on a different patch of Earth? Make up your mind!

[slothman]

3. What is the objective difference between an illegal immigrant and a human?

A human may not be an illegal immigrant, I was born here.
An illegal immigrant is a human.
The set of humans contains the set of illegal immigrants.

[Lord Xar]

Opponents of amnesty argue that a large new segment of the electorate would be largely more liberal than they, and should therefore not be allowed citizenship. The point has merit, but is principally an argument against non-participatory democracy than anything else.

Nice strawman argument. You open border apologists never cease to amaze me.

I love how you tie in the "more" liberal and "not allowed to citizenship". You are woven those two together nicely. Demogogue much?

You have missed the point of your presented argument.

IF the representation of "illegal" immigrants was uniform and it was NOT based on welfare or social promotion or taxpayer subsidization, then we can have a valid discussion. But I surmise that by putting an end to all those lures, illegal immigration wouldn't be much of a problem.

If I bring in millions upon millions upon millions of low-skilled, uneducated, and by virtue of their behaviour (by coming here), those of questionable moral character (though that can be debated on some level). The effect can be tremendous. Low skilled, uneducated usually comprises of dependents, and it is the taxpayer who usually has to pay that freight. Now, the libs/dems have made a dynasty by keeping people dumb and needy, and full of expectations that others must fill. So, thru partisan politics and special interests, there is a tremendous burden on the taxpayer and govt to maintain this.

This burden does not shrink government, nor alleviate the taxpayer, but rather the opposite.
If you think our constitution, or this country can withstand the unyielding illegal & legal immigration, then I can only surmise, you are a globalist.

My goal is liberty and freedom. Don't let your perversion of liberty/freedom bring about the end to the very thing you "assume" to love so much.

[dannno]

A human may not be an illegal immigrant, I was born here.
An illegal immigrant is a human.
The set of humans contains the set of illegal immigrants.

So you agree there is no objective difference between the groups?

[dannno]

I surmise that by putting an end to all those lures, illegal immigration wouldn't be much of a problem.

Are you saying you believe that the real problem with immigration is US policy and not the immigrants themselves? Sort of like a symptom/disease analogy (immigration being the symptom of a disease that is US policy)?

I sure would like to hope my posts are wearing off on you somewhat...

[Pennsylvania]

You have missed the point of your presented argument.

The argument has been presented elsewhere on this board. I was simply restating it.

IF the representation of "illegal" immigrants was uniform and it was NOT based on welfare or social promotion or taxpayer subsidization, then we can have a valid discussion. But I surmise that by putting an end to all those lures, illegal immigration wouldn't be much of a problem.

Here's what happens

1. Money is stolen from productive people (tax victims, also known as tax-"payers")
2. That money is reallocated to social programs
3. Immigrants benefit from some of those social programs
4. People blame the immigrants

Looking at #4... Why? Why not hit the root of the problem @ #1? In addition to being stolen from to begin with, we are now burdened with the cost of enforcement. Why does it make any sense whatsoever not to stop the thieves who originally steal from productive people? All of our efforts should be spent here, not against the immigrants themselves, most of whom are coming here to be productive.

If I bring in millions upon millions upon millions of low-skilled, uneducated, and by virtue of their behaviour (by coming here), those of questionable moral character (though that can be debated on some level). The effect can be tremendous. Low skilled, uneducated usually comprises of dependents, and it is the taxpayer who usually has to pay that freight.

Reinforcing my point, I daresay.

This burden does not shrink government, nor alleviate the taxpayer, but rather the opposite. If you think our constitution, or this country can withstand the unyielding illegal & legal immigration, then I can only surmise, you are a globalist.

A globalist desires world-government. I desire self-government. There is all the difference in the world. I derive a system of ethics from the goal of non-aggression, meaning never to conduct oneself violently against anyone unless they have also become violent. These people have violent individuals just like any other cross-section of any society, but they are not inherently violent simply because they don't have a social security number. They do, in fact, benefit from things they do not directly pay into, but guess what, so do we...Many of us are on this land because it was stolen from Native Americans. Does that make us all criminals? Is a welfare-recipient automatically a criminal? No. It means the system is flawed, and nobody should be stolen from to support another's well-being. Nevertheless, it wouldn't make it right to build walls around welfare recipients, or electric fences, or whatever.

[andrewh817]

A human may not be an illegal immigrant, I was born here.
An illegal immigrant is a human.
The set of humans contains the set of illegal immigrants.

By looking at someone, can you tell whether or not they're a citizen? If not, can you tell by doing a chemical test/brain scan?

If the answer is no, then there is no objective difference.

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's what happens

1. Money is stolen from productive people (tax victims, also known as tax-"payers")
2. That money is reallocated to social programs
3. Immigrants benefit from some of those social programs
4. People blame the immigrants

Looking at #4... Why? Why not hit the root of the problem @ #1? In addition to being stolen from to begin with, we are now burdened with the cost of enforcement. Why does it make any sense whatsoever not to stop the thieves who originally steal from productive people? All of our efforts should be spent here, not against the immigrants themselves, most of whom are coming here to be productive.

This reminds of me of a current, controversial event. Not everyone who wants immigration control "blames" the immigrants. Not everyone who wants to eliminate the IRS wants to "blame" every employee of the IRS.

[Dunedain]

Since there's no significant genetic difference (in the brain) between humans, is there an objective difference between an immigrant and a citizen?

Humans have a lot of genetic differences: physically, physiologically and psychologically. Only identical twins have no genetic differences. The whole premise of your argument is based on an egalitarian fantasy that only communists believe: that all humans are the same. That is simply not reality regardless of what we would wish.

Do I blame illegal immigrants for want to come and take advantage of our free everything? Of course not. If someone offered me something free I would take it and give it to my family. However, our politicians shilling to give away MY FAMILY'S wealth to "the poor" of the 3rd world need to be imprisoned before the U.S.A. ends as we no it.

[Lord Xar]

Are you saying you believe that the real problem with immigration is US policy and not the immigrants themselves? Sort of like a symptom/disease analogy (immigration being the symptom of a disease that is US policy)?

I sure would like to hope my posts are wearing off on you somewhat...

No, I have always maintained that we subsidize this behaviour. The difference between our philosophies is that I want to stabilize the patient before I dare operate and remove the offending disease, whereas you appear to allow the ravages of the disease to persist while we decide how best to proceed.

In other words..

Me: Stop illegal immigration cold. Stop it completely. Enforce the rules and be very strict. Stabilize that. Now, lets deal with the underlying problem. The welfare, the entitlements, the birthright citizenship.. the whole mentaility of it all.... then we can deal with immigration in a feasible way..

you: Continue the flood, continue the subsidization, continue the burden on this country -- and yes, leftist voters who will only dine to want bigger government AND more welfare/open border policies... all the while trying to fix the welfare, entitlements etc......

My way is the only way, I see working. The more time passes with your approach, the more the other end of the pendulum renders yours weightless.

I am with you on all that nafta/cafta etc... always have been.