Any guess where this is from?
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither,
I'd appreciate your civil discussion on this quote in relation to today
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting tie-in for the day. :-)
One way I tend to look at immigration is as a balance between heart and mind.
My heart wishes we could take in all that are endangered and even those who are just looking for more opportunity.
My mind is aware that many immigrants will be a benefit to the community they join, but is also aware that there is some risk (that I can't quantify) of crime, terrorism, growing welfare costs, etc.
My heart and mind tend to agree that the status quo, where some immigrants are here illegally, but provide cheap labor and in some cases pay into Social Security without ever drawing from it, may be a net positive to the economy, but it seems exploitative. It may not be as easy to point to as child separation, but it's a quiet caste system that we should not be proud to perpetuate.
I feel that we're a sovereign nation with a right to secure its borders, enforce our laws and decide who and how many new immigrants we're willing to accept. That said, many nations appear to be grappling with just where the limits are, with so many ongoing conflicts.
It's hard for me to tie that all back to the quote. At that time, there was land for the taking as far as you could see and all we promised was the chance to go work it. Today we have safety nets in place, but they come at a cost.
(There's part of me that feels like this is one of the main struggles. I think logistically, there are places in the world where we (all nations) could invest to make refugee camps MUCH better to the point that folks could stay there, near their home country, until maybe the conflict subsides. Or where people could stay while they waited to enter another country. But it's too easy to point to that and say "Japanese internment camp" or compare their standard of life to that of citizens of stable countries. Part of us feels like we owe them the same thing. And maybe we do, but IF we do, it comes at a cost.)
I'm always one for the bad analogy, so if I had a big empty house and farm, and I could bring in foster kids who helped keep the place up, I'd probably start inviting them in (and give them all the love and help I could). But if at some point the house gets crowded, the cost of housing them rises, some start tearing up the place, I myself get deep into debt, etc., my invitations might start to slow down. I might ask a lot more questions up front.
On balance, I'd still like to take in as many as possible, treat them with dignity in the meantime and dial the rhetoric WAY down. But I think there can be limits.
An interesting article about how Canada handles things. It also mentions how things are beginning to change, public reaction when things don't go as planned, etc.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/canada-immigration-success/564944/?utm_source=feed
I like your refreshing balance. Thanks Jeff.
Post a Comment