Originally posted by JB88
not entirely open borders no. though in the longterm i think that international travel should be as simple as travelling from say oklahoma to washington.
[/b]
So you're saying then that IF the A-Q terrorists want to come from the Middle East to NYC, it should be as easy as a US Citizen traveling from state to state?
Let me understand you. You're saying you want no barrier? Because as you well know, there is no barrier at all for such a trip by a US citizen.
i do not believe in security measures which overly segregate, close off or otherwise draw massive barriers between people.
[/b]
Are you saying that the requirement for a foreigner to have a valid passport from his home country in order to enter the US is Characteristic of "security measures which overly segregate, close off or otherwise draw massive barriers between people" ?
I don't think having to have a passport is much of barrier at all, let alone one that fits that description. I've traveled to a lot of foreign countries. Most required me to have a valid US passport; I'd say this is really "status quo" in the world, rather than some massive barrier between people.
i believe that it stiffles ideas and communication...
[/b]
The requirement for a
passport? Surely you jest.
in my view this is still the theoretical equivelent of what the soviets did.
[/b]
Hardly. In fact, that hypothesis is preposterous from the very start.
we are failing to do in such situations is hold those who are truly responsible accountable
[/b]
That is true. What we obviously disagree on is the fact that people are responsible on BOTH sides of this equation. Indeed, people that employ illegals are just as gulity as those who cross and remain here illegally.
BOTH should be held accountable and punished according to the law.
but dont doubt for a second that it could also be used to kick undesirables out or keep people from bringing in fresh ideas. it is anti-american at its very core.
[/b]
The requirement for a
passport. Again, surely you jest. If you really believe that, you need to read more of the background discussions during the Constitutional convention.
On immigration, assimilation, and citizenship naturalization, West finds that the views of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, John Jay, and Gouverneur Morris are remarkably similar.
First, the Founders believed that the American republic had the right to set the limits and conditions of immigration and eventual citizenship. As Gouverneur Morris stated at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, "every society from a great nation down to a club had the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted."
Second, they welcomed immigrants, but on the condition that they become good citizens. As George Washington explained, "We shall welcome [them] to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."
Third, the Founders insisted on assimilation. Washington wrote to Adams that he worried about immigrants "retain[ing] the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them" and favored "an intermixture with our people [where] they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, [and we] soon become one people."
In short, the Founders maintained (sensibly enough) that immigration/assimilation policy be judged on the basis of national interest, i.e., what was good for America. There is not a scintilla of agreement between the Founders' views and Miniter's position that there is some "fundamental right" of free immigration.
(give me your tired...your poor, your yearning to be free...french people thought that of us once remember)
[/b]
My paternal great grandparents came in thru Ellis Island. My maternal grandparents came in thru Ellis Island. All four of these individuals were extremely poor; they came basically with the clothes on their backs. Additionally, the Irish were yearning to be free of English rule.
Note the salient fact: they CAME IN THROUGH ELLIS ISLAND. They came in IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.
Is this asking too much now?
and what of the people who hire illegals? they are the ones who offer the incentive, yet the punishments are minimal at best. it goes straight to the core of the lack of personal accountability that exists in this country.
[/b]
I agree. As I said, I think BOTH sides of the problem should be addressed. Requiring a passport is a MINIMAL step forward on one side. There needs to be stronger enforcement of the laws against violators on BOTHS sides.
do you think that this is somehow bolstering the image of the united states in the world? do you think that this attitude is going to continue to attract bright minds and free spirits to our soil?
[/b]
I seriously doubt that it is damaging the image of the US. Just about every country requires a passport for entry by foreigners.
Check this link to see which countries require US citizens to have a passport to enter. I think you'll see passports are "status quo" worldwide. It's hard to imagine anyone sees this as unusual or out of the ordinary simply because it is.......... ordinary.
FOREIGN ENTRY REQUIREMENTS totalitarianism doesnt have that capacity.
[/b]
Requiring a
passport is totalitarian? This will be news to a very large number of countries.
and we are becoming what we have always detested.
[/b]
That would be a country that requires a passport to enter?
Indeed, you must surely jest.
