What are some reasons to oppose immigration

What are some reasons to oppose immigration

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-are-some-reasons-to-oppose-immigration

Most reasons are due economical views. Some are due to disease.

What are some sound (not racist) reasons to oppose illegal immigr…?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090514005810AA7oGud

Uncontrolled illegal immigration has a contributing negative effect on so many problem areas the US. The economy and jobs: not only do illegals take jobs from Americans, but they depress wages, pay less or no taxes, and use greater amounts …

Is this another reason that “right wing radicals” oppos…?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090418185533AAxqGEr

If we are not going to enforce laws, why do we have them other than for selective enforcement a.k.a. DISCRIMINATION. I know someone who has been waiting for years to legally immigrate from teh Phillipines, I can’t explain why someone who lo…

Related Questions Answered on Y!Answers

What are some sound (not racist) reasons to oppose illegal immigration?

Q: I’m in the process of appealing to all levels of my government (in writing) for the enforcement of our immigration laws. What are some reasons I can give to bolster my cause? Here’s what I have so far:1. By allowing unscrupulous employers to have someone to exploit, illegal immigration undermines the American work force because competing companies have to exploit THEIR workers in order to compete.2. By not having a static identity, illegal immigrants are able to break the law with impunity. If the cost of a new ID is less than that of paying a fine, many people simply adopt a new name.3. Illegal immigrants are being abused at every turn because they don’t have the protection of American law. This, in turn, causes a deep suspicion and resentment of “the system,” which does nothing to make the victims even want to be productive citizens.4. American resources are not infinite, and not being able to control the population of this country will cause overpopulation, which WILL stretch all resources thin in the near future.Notice that none of the main reasons I present have anything to do with not liking foreigners, or wanting to preserve any kind of racial purity. I don’t blame immigrants for our society’s ills, but allowing them to exist here without any kind of accountability or interaction will set them up as the perfect scapegoats for REAL racist hate-mongers.I want our country’s immigration policy to be comprehensive and enforceable. I’m not in favor of “closing the borders” and not letting anyone come here, but who could have a problem with expecting people to ask a government’s permission to live and work in a nation? This is no different than expecting your neighbor to knock on your door and ask before they use your shower. If they just marched in and did so, you’d be a lot less sympathetic about the fact that their hot water heater is busted than you would’ve been if they’d just ASKED you.EDITED TO ADD: As to the reason of crime rate, is there any proof that crime rates are higher in areas of illegal immigration as compared to American ghettos? What I’m wondering is whether the higher crime rates are the result of poverty or immigration.MattCasey, we cannot eliminate racism. If that’s your first step, the rest of your plan will fall apart when it gets hung up there.SonoranAngel gets a thumbs up and adds a #5 to my list. Illegal immigrants do send a lot of American dollars back to their home countries, which do not support local merchants or generate sales taxes. However, legal immigrants do this too, so perhaps we should start a tariff/tax on money leaving this country.

A: Uncontrolled illegal immigration has a contributing negative effect on so many problem areas the US. The economy and jobs: not only do illegals take jobs from Americans, but they depress wages, pay less or no taxes, and use greater amounts of social services. People say Illegals take jobs no American will do. Maybe Americans would do those jobs if the wages reflected the American job market, and not those of a third world country. Health Care: illegal immigrant abuse of emergency room services has closed some hospitals, and costs every American in greater health care and insurance costs. The Doctors and Nurses still get paid for treating illegals with no health insurance. These costs get passed on to those that can pay. The Environment: Uncontrolled growth from illegal immigrants in states like California have gobbled up land, taxed water supplies, caused more pollution. Most recent population growth in California is from illegal immigration, and the children of illegal immigrants having children. Roads: In states with high illegal immigration, if illegals didn’t also drive illegally, roads would not be crowded. Housing: Uncontrolled illegal immigration puts greater demands on housing driving up rents and home costs. Illegal immigrants also receive free or subsidized public housing, reducing housing for qualified American poor families. Education: Our public elementary schools in the Southwest are being overwhelmed by the children of illegal immigrants. These non-English speaking students require more resources in order to succeed, more school buildings at tax payer expense. School resources spent on anchor baby children of illegal immigrants reduce funds available for US citizens. Illegal immigrants are being offered college scholarships, free or subsidized student housing in some states, at the expense of citizens who could also use those services. Fairness: Why are social services being offered to illegal immigrants instead of American Citizens. I didn’t realize that all our American poor have been helped, so that we can now offer benefits to anyone who can sneak across the border. Controlling our borders: If you are pro illegal immigration, you do not recognize that America has the right to control its borders and have an immigration policy that benefits this country and it’s citizens. If someone condones illegal immigration, they must also support no controls on immigration, legal or illegal. How to reduce illegal immigration: E-verify is the most effective way to reduce illegal immigration. People wouldn’t come here illegally if there were no jobs. Making this program work has to be the top priority of immigration policy, and would be more effective than a border fence. However, a border fence is also a good deterrent, and would be an excellent economic stimulus country public work project.

Why the average American is so Ignorant about Geography, History, and Immigration Issues?

Q: To best explain the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and its many connotations, the United States’ concept of “Manifest Destiny” should be covered first. Manifest Destiny was the belief of English-speaking Americans that God had ordained them to take and hold the lands from the Mississippi River to the coast of the Pacific Ocean, much of which was claimed and occupied by Mexicans and Indians. The United States’ people believed its means of fulfilling this destiny were justified, a Machiavellian concept (“the end justifies the means”).The US found its opportunity to use this concept to obtain a large portion of Mexico when Texas gained independence in 1836. Though Texas had agreed not to annex itself to the United States in exchange for its independence, it did so in 1845. However, at the time of annexation, the southern border of Texas had still not been specified. US President Polk took the position that recognized the Rio Grande as the southern border. In what was later to be considered a deliberate provocation by the United States to begin a conflict with Mexico, US troops entered the area between the Nueces River and the Rio Grande (land believed to belong to the US through annexation). The conflict that occurred between the US military and Mexican military was considered an act of war by the US, even though Mexico had not confirmed whether or not the Rio Grande was the southern border of the Texas territory.After many unsuccessful peace negotiations (open and secret) and after many military skirmishes, the US military gained occupation of Mexico City in August 1847. It was then that the final peace negotiations began in what would become the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The treaty demanded a large section of Mexico’s northern territory, with the Rio Grande as the southern border (for to accept the Nueces would be admitting guilt for starting the war). It was signed and sent to Mexico and the United States’ senates to be ratified on February 2, 1848.In the United States, President Polk only conceded to accept it and send it on to the Senate for ratification after coming to the conclusion that continuing the war would not acquire for the United States a treaty that was any better. However, he recommended to Congress that an amended one be ratified and sent to Mexico for approval, one that did not contain Article X, which guaranteed property rights for Mexicans and Indians living in the ceded territory being. His main reason for this recommendation was that questions over the validity of land grants in Texas would come up on whether or not the treaty would apply to Texas since they had acquired their independence prior to the treaty.Many factions within Congress were against ratifying the treaty, but for different reasons. The Whig party believed that the treaty would increase the southern states’ power by legalizing slavery within the new territory. Some were opposed because they were “morally against the war.” Others didn’t want it because they were Polk’s rivals, and some like Sam Houston wanted more territory than the treaty claimed. The treaty suffered few changes otherwise due to “each faction’s opposition to the proposals of the others.” The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, without Article X and with changes made to Article IX, passed the Senate and was ratified on March 10, 1848.In Mexico, a letter of explanation by US Secretary of State James Buchanan followed the amended treaty. His letter included reasons why Article X was stricken and why Article IX was reworded. According to the letter, Article X was deleted because Buchanan firmly believed the US Constitution’s promise to protect a person’s property would be upheld regardless of whether or not the article was included in the treaty. As for Article IX, Buchanan explained that it had been revised as a “result of the Senate’s wish not to violate precedents established in treaties negotiated with France and Spain.” Also, a document known as the Protocol of Querétaro was presented to the Mexican Congress prior to the treaty’s ratification that explained the United States’ reasons for changing the original treaty. It said that the changes to Article IX “did not intend to diminish in any way” the rights that would be given to Mexican citizens becoming US citizens, and that the deletion of Article X “did not intend in any way to annul grants of land made by Mexico in the ceded territories.” However, the protocol’s interpretation of the treaty was never considered by the US government to be obligatory, meaning it had “no legal force.”Mexico’s handling of the issues that surrounded the ratification of such a treaty went more along the lines of survival. Many factions in Mexico’s political system were against the treaty. One liberal by the name of Manuel Crescencio Rejón argued that the treaty would mean Mexico’s “economic subordination” and that since it had been signed before Congress could discuss this option, the treaty went against the Mexican Constitution. Another against the treaty was José María Cuevas, who spoke about his opposition to the Chamber of Deputies. Some did favor the treaty because it stopped the US from taking more territory and costing Mexico more military funding. One such person was one of the original commissioners, Bernardo Couto, who called the treaty one of “recovery rather than one of alienation.” In a later book about the war, one author called the treaty merely the confirmation that the US had taken land which had little value and was hard to defend. Mexico deemed it wise to choose the “lesser of two evils” and ratified the treaty on May 19, 1848.It wasn’t long until the United States began a series of treaty violations, which for the most part went unresolved, and some which still are unresolved today. The Land Act of 1851 established a Board of Land Commissioners which required that land-owners “present evidence supporting title within two years, or their property would pass into the public domain.” According to the protocol (earlier noted to be of “no legal force” according to the US government), the property rights of Mexican landowners would be protected. In the fine print, though, the deletion of Article X made it hard for landowners with “imperfect” titles to complete the processes of land confirmation, whether it was via Mexican law or United States law.Another violation of the treaty was the Foreign Miners’ Tax Law that inadvertently discriminated against those Mexicans who should have been exempted from the tax because of the treaty’s provisions for US citizenship. “Since there was a legal distinction between the Mexicans who had migrated to California after 1848 and those who were there before the gold rush,” outcry over the tax law being enforced on Mexican-Americans could not be justified.It was violations such as these that inspired the Chicano movement in the 1960s, the same era as the Civil Rights movement. The movement sought to “redefine” the position of Mexican-Americans. To help with that cause, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was used to point out abuses to their human rights, such as the right to property denied those who were kept from completing their land titles, and such as the right to the full enjoyment of US citizenship which was indicated as forthcoming in Article IX of the treaty. Though the movement did not do well at obtaining help from the US government to restore land to Mexican-Americans, a recent move to take the case of the Mexican-American and the Native-American to international courts by the IITC has begun to meet with increasing success.Since the signing of the treaty, a policy of arbitration has existed between Mexico and the United States, though the US does use it mostly when to its own advantage. However, this policy, the intertwining of the two cultures due to the Mexican influence in the US Southwest, and advances in both countries’ sense of human rights and diplomacy is slowly warming the friendship of the neighboring nations.

A: Thanks for the explanation. I wonder who sues the Mexicans over taking the land from the Indians?

What should the U.S do about immigration?

Q: I hear groups like activist from La Raza and then i hear the minutemen talks. No offense i think both groups are stupid. First let me show those who are opposed immigration.1. This is the land of immigrants. The majority of people in the u.s are descendants of immigrants. Although i dont count English immigrants and Black Slaves. Their more settlers. The Native American were not a united groups who had borders. They just had tribes.2. The human being has the right to move where ever he pleases to.3. Those people come here to work and not to invade your country. But now is the activists turn.1. You guys say you guys arent criminals, but your illegals in this country, you work with false social securitys.2.Majority who are Mexicans, and i know because im Mexican. Act like this is Mexico and not the U.S…Let it go already this is not Mexico anymore. Besides States like California that are now rich didnt prosper when the Mexican governmen was in charge. They prosper when the Americans were in charge. Obviously their are borders for a reason. All Mexicans would come here to work and that would lead to unbalancing the system.3. The Mexican government is working to help Mexicans cross illegaly here but they sure dont allow immigrants in their country. Not only that they treat them bad. And for worse. They left Mexico but once their in here their oppresors come here and still want to conrol them by telling them to vote here. Stupid. Did you left Mexico or brought Mexico with you. Its understandable when people bring their culture to other countrys and thats fine. But when they disrespect this country like also some Arabs do. Man that is just wrong. This is the thanks America gets. I know its not perfect but no country is perfect thats why you left yours. The solution should be this. Check with the governments of the majority of immigrants where they from and try to prevent it. Also they should check criminal background in the illegals here and legalize those who have live here pay taxes and have help America society for 5 years. And i think thats how you would solve the problem.

A: i’m white, from south texas, and now live in north texas. i have no problem with hispanics, mexicans, and others from south of the border, even if they don’t speak english (and i don’t speak spanish). i don’t assume that those i work with who don’t speak english are illegal. i don’t even mind the number of illegals here assuming they were legal. i was surprised at the amount of racism i heard concerning hispanics on dallas radio shows — never heard stuff like this in corpus christi or austin or houston. that culture was in much of texas before white culture was, which was at first mostly german even! i’m for immigration reform, but not in the minuteman style. my husband is the aforementioned dutch transnational. this is a country of immigrants. i have no problem with hispanic culture, nor living in hispanic areas.