Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
I would still be here.
But, I really try to avoid such responses to laws including immigration laws. I compare it to responding to child labor and child protection laws by saying "these U.S.A. laws either did not exist or were not so tight 100-300 years ago...so go ahead and let that 12 year old child do factory labor, have consensual sex, and get married...kids are just short adults therefore these laws are moot."
Societies shift; practices, policies, or laws are constructed; practices, policies, or laws are debated; practices, policies, or laws are changed; and the cycle of humanity continues.
|
Aww I think it's cute in a bleeding heart kind of way.
I've noticed that a lot of people who participate in this debate don't understand the immigration system or how it works.
The system is designed to be most advantageous to the nation, not the individual immigrant. It's this way in every country in the world, probably will always be this way too. Our country had a totally different set of needs 100-200 years ago. We needed immigrants to grow the population and settle and develop the country. Look at the Homestead Act. Should people still be entitled to free land today because they did it 150 years ago?
Since there was really no sort of welfare back then, the possibility of an immigrant becoming a public burden was nil. Back then if you didn't work, you didn't eat.
Today's "desired" immigrant needs to be educated (or willing to be), able to financially support him/herself and their dependents at entry, able to contribute to society and not be a threat to public safety.
But once again...
Our immigration policies are written to address to needs of our country, not the needs of the individual immigrant. While becoming the worlds refugee camp and feeding, housing, and supporting the worlds poor and downtrodden may give us all warm and fuzzies we just can't afford to do it with our currently broken entitlement system.
Threaded Mode
