Sadly many people do not understand this. They are convinced that opening the flood gates will keep the economic expansion rolling forever with no day of reckoning.

This bill failed not because it was bigoted but because people via the internet are becoming smarter and more informed.

It failed for 3 reasons.

It fails to address the economic impact that massive immigration will have in this country.

It failed because it fails to address the social aspects of assimilating people into this culture in a timely and creative fashion.

And it failed because we have elements in this country who are very paranoid about our open borders. The solution was to fence in part of the border in exchange for massive amounts of immigration. Amnesty was a 4 letter word.

While Jason does not agree with me that does not alter the fact that there are many many who do. Obviously more agree with me then HIM….nah, nah, nah. Opponents of this bill fall into any one of the three groups and are both conservative and liberal, democratic and republican and even some UNIONS failed to get behind this bill.

I believe in Open borders. I believe in limiting immigration to an amount that forces this nation to address its economic problems without using other nations populations to solve our woes. I believe in amnesty and I believe that immigrants are good people looking for a life but I also believe that all Immigrants should be Americans first and then Whatever.

Until our congress can deal with these issues one at a time then I fear there will never be a solution. So again I encourage our congress to look at approaching our Immigration reform in a manner which respects both sides of the equation. One step at a time until the problem is solved or at least addressed.

That is okay. More Impressive.

Im just nobody who promoted himself to somebody. But honestly I respect you for your stand on at least moderate values. Hard to find moderates on a college campus these days.

I think your quote was something along the lines of I teach even my debate team this that or the other. I forget now but it was actually a pretty impressive quote……cant you tell…..I remember it clearly………..:)

To continue. If you have read my posts. I also advocate an open border. No fence. No increase in border guards and no massive budgetary hit to bring this bill into effect. Estimates have ranged from 45 billion to over 100 billion dollars on this thing.

I believe in amnesty for all those who can pass a background check because I do not want some other countries wife beaters or child molestors in my country.

I believe that as a government we must retain control of our borders and we do this through internal policies that reflect outwardly in a show of strength and unity.

I believe the only way a bill that deals with this immigration issue has to be passed in parts because the whole is just to Immense and overwhelming for a single bill to adequately address the core issue which is Economic.

I’m disappointed, actually, as I had thought that you might be Mark Steyn and we could have a real debate about his book “America Alone” wherein he makes arguments very similar to some of yours.

BTW, I was enlisted in the USAF, not an officer. There are very few of us who become academics, so the assumption is understandable, albeit unfortunate.

Sorry I didnt google you. This is listed on the side bar in the about TMV’s authors. I have nothing but respect for you as a college professor and former Air force officer.

Oh sorry I didnt realize that being a professor you would take that seriously about the book….I meant that as a slang verbage….My apologies.

Well said Jason. You must have read my book.

Perhaps. I did read a book that discussed this topic and pro-natalist policies recently. If you actually are Mark Steyn, perhaps you could stop playing coy and just be open about it. After all, you Google’d me and reciprocity as to one’s own identity seems the very minimum of courtesy and integrity.

Does this not bespeak of the need to reexamine our immigration policy as opposed to just willy nilly opening the flood gates to prevent budgetary crisis?

Yes, I’ve been supporting a reexamination of immigration policy consistently. If you are Mark Steyn or one of his adherents, where we differ is in defining the goal of that immigration policy. I prefer to have as open a borders as is consistent with security because doing so is economically most efficient. Accordingly, I support background checks and I am open to the idea of physical security measures IF someone can convince me that they would be effective. But I’m not willing to just put the whole issue on hold until the “enforce the border!” people take two decades to figure out that perfect physical security is not possible.

This is the crux of why I argue against massive Immigration. It begs a failed policy in which this country loses control of her own destiny and puts it in the hands of 198 other countries.

And this is the part where I see zero evidence again. The idea that people are a threat to national identity merely because they are outsiders is an argument from prejudice, not evidence. Huntington’s argument and, to a lesser extent, Steyn’s, seems to me xenophobia with an academic veneer.

But if you really are Steyn, please just come straight out with it so we can continue this discussion in a more direct fashion after I have a more stable and complete account of what your entire position is from having read (listened to, actually) your book.

Well said Jason. You must have read my book.

This begs the question of policy. Does this not go to the heart of the problem which is for a government to encourage Procreation so that a nation can grow numerically?

Does this not bespeak of the need to reexamine our immigration policy as opposed to just willy nilly opening the flood gates to prevent budgetary crisis?

Should we not be examining alternatives other then just opening the gates and letting them all into our country? The crisis lies not in the looming shortage. The crisis lies in the inability of this nation to address it logically and with reasonable policies.

Any policy that derives its strength from things that it cannot control is a policy waiting to fail. When we as a nation address our budgetary deficits and inability to pay our bills by focusing on allowing immigration into our country then we as a nation have totally lost control of our own destiny.

This is the crux of why I argue against massive Immigration. It begs a failed policy in which this country loses control of her own destiny and puts it in the hands of 198 other countries.

I disagree with both points of Huntington’s argument (as I am prone to do with many of Huntington’s arguments, actually). I don’t think that the immigrants we are talking about constitute any threat to American national identity (which is not based on ethnicity or religion anyway) nor to I think that there is any evidence that they won’t assimilate just like previous generations of immigrants like the Irish, Italians, or whatever. The number “100 million” doesn’t scare me — these are just people looking for jobs. Europe’s failure to assimilate is largely because they have laws that deny citizenship opportunities or which empower reactionary elements within immigrant communities with pseudo-legal powers independent of the state. The United States has a much greater ability to assimilate immigrants because it has a tradition of allowing a path to citizienship (the most powerful tool of assimilation possible).

Also, hidden in your asking rhetorical questions about Muslims is the fact that you STILL haven’t identified any actual scenario about what would actually be bad about 100 million or whatever immigrants. You’re obviously expecting me to read some valid concern between the lines because you don’t want to say it straight out. Think again. What kind of “liberties” would be lost, in your opinion? How exactly would that happen?

With your cartoonish examples about gay haters and fundamentalist Muslims, you seem to assume that these immigrants will in some way be hostile to traditional American notions but you offer no evidence that this would actually be the case. Historically, the evidence is very strongly against your position, so you have a substantial burden of proof that you need to meet.

There is no evidence that incoming immigrants would be fundamentalist Muslims, gay haters, or drug addicts. Thus, you still haven’t answered a question of what would be wrong with even 100 million immigrants in 20 years. TRY AGAIN.

Finally, congratulations that you were able to find out that I once was a champion debater and still help run a championship debate tournament. I’m at a loss as to how you thought that was a bad thing. In fact, 10 years of competing, judging, and coaching gave me a very solid ability to identify a bad argument in ANY forum. And yours thus far on this issue is really, really bad.

100,000,000 Muslims who believed they were Muslims first and then Americans. Who wanted to pray 5 times a day and you know…….all the usual stuff associated with Muslim fundamentalists.

What if they built 10,000 Mosques and the people went to them and listen to the Immans preaching their fatwahs and their hate and their discuss for western Values. What if we elected 60 senators who were Fundamental Muslims???

What then?

Or what if the 100,000,000 Were all straight and hated Gays and were homophobes? Or what if they were all Conservatively Social Christians coming to America?

What Then?

I believe in realistic immigration quotas because I believe that the integrity of America should be preserved. I do not care what their skin color, or their religion as long as one thing above all else is maintained.

The Integrity of the American dream which is?

Liberty for all.

This bill would open the flood gates and the country would be unable to assimilate its citizens. Europe is wrestling with this problem. America can choose not to.

I am not opposed to immigration. I am only opposed to this bill which would and could:

Theoretically allow 100,000,000 Muslims into our country in 20 years. Or 100,000,000 Conservative Social Christians, or Gay haters, Or Drug Addicts or pick your poison.

In theory the numbers in this bill are possible. I pointed out how.

And aint google wonderful.

My point is that your definition is absurd. Intrusion is not measured by counting number of regulations, but rather by assessing the significance of limits on personal freedom. And a ban is a much more significant limit than any other regulation.

Also, just FYI, the method I was using to make this criticism of your argument does not, in fact, derive from my experience in college debate. In fact, I found college debaters that made your particular error and others far worse quite commonly. The points I have been making are methodological, drawn from a post-graduate career in social sciences rather than from my undergraduate career in debate competition. So there.

Now, as for THIS thread, I simply repeat my prior question about why your limits are even desirable. Please stop trying to attack me personally (oddly by constantly referencing something that I am actually proud of and by exploiting your anonymity to do so from a position of unfair advantage even if I was embarrassed by it) and simply answer the questions.

P.S. Do you think you are the first person to discover Google?

Now can we have a discussion of the issues instead of trying to have a college debate?

Something for debate, discussion and revision. My program is not etched in stone, nor should it be. But at least I have proposed something as a starting point. You have proposed nothing except once again………..Criticism.

Jason Do you even know anything about our Immigration policy? Or are you just so absorbed with trying to out debate me that your brain turns to mush?

In short, nice job of the always-annoying “playing gotcha” by cross-posting an irrelevant comment from another thread, but you’re still not dealing with the challenge you face on THIS thread.

Bottom line: What is wrong with large-scale immigration? What is wrong with “amnesty”? What is wrong even with “100 million” as you claim the current bill would allow?

I’m not saying your answers to these questions are based in bigotry, but I know some people’s are. So I’m pressing you to answer them fully and completely before I draw conclusions about where you are coming from.