From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealing an unlicensed pharmacist.
Because I have a reasoned view of immigration, some have called me a xenophobic racist, showing they don't know what either word means, and aren't listening to what I actually think (or are missing the nuances of life).

I love immigrants. I am one. Well, 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant. (Iranian Dad on one side, Italian Grandma and German Great Grandparents on the other), raised mostly by a British Step-Dad. Many of my friends (now and growing up) and coworkers today (and historically) have been immigrants as well. I've dated immigrants, I taught immigrants, and I hang with immigrants. I love variants in culture, language, food, and people. So if you think I'm against immigrants, you're a moron.That being said, if you think all immigrants are equal, and we should have open borders, your reading comprehension needs work. (I say that because lots of people will read the following, and then claim I'm anti-immigrant.
History of Immigration

The first thing to remember, is the context (history). Why is the immigration fight so bitter today? That history can be summed up as: Democrats lie and polarize. Period. Dems traded amnesty for border fence, then broke their promise. They promised if they won, they would increase enforcement, they didn't. They sabotaged Republican efforts to have immigration reform. They don't want to fix it -- or they would have first thing when they got super majorities in all houses. They want to lie to the other side, piss them off, refuse to admit any history/mistakes/context, then use the other sides reaction to say, "see they're all racists!" and dupe more money and votes from their gullible base.

Which divides us into two groups, those that remember how we got here, and those who either don't know or don't want to know (willfully ignorant), and will throw money at the Democrats for creating the problems we have today, and doing everything they could to obstruct fixing/improving it. more...


There's a program called the H-1B visa. It’s a complete fraud, that I support. Sorta. more...

Democracy Participants

A democracy is made up of its voters, and the quality of the votes will be a reflection of those voters. So who you let in, will impact your whole country. If you let in a lot of bigots, you will become a country of bigots. That's not magic, it's not xenophobia, it's called logic (or math). That doesn't mean I'm anti-immigrant, or anti-Islamic immigrant. It means that you need to be smart enough to let people in at only the rate your society can absorb and convert them to more of your way of thinking.... or accept the consequences of being more like them. The middle east is tribal infighting bigots (it doesn't have to do with Islam, as much as the middle-eastern sub-culture). That doesn't mean they're all bad, or they don't have great things to teach us, or some great people -- they do. You just need to be careful that when you're letting people in, they aren't all coming from one area, and you need to control the recipe that's in the big melting pot. Salt is good. Too much sale is bad. I'm happy to let in muslims, as long as they are spreading out, adapting (within reason and keeping their own culture and values, while blending with some of ours). But if you let it too many people from any lawless and less educated part of the world (shitholes, as they're sometimes called), then you'll get the obvious consequences: a lot more democrats winning election, and a lot more bigoted and hypocritical double-standards and division. So it's about balance and letting enough in to keep stressing and growing your culture and diversifying... without letting in so many, so fast, that they ruin the recipe and destabilize the nation.

Takers and makers

Because of wealth redistribution, in this society we have takers (those that get more than they contribute) and makers (those that give more than they take). In order to prevent your society from crumbling under the weight of it's own generosity, you need enough of the latter to support the former. We call that economics. If you don't have that, then the immigrants are seen as mooches, and society retaliates against them.

There's also a rate of change that any society tolerates. If you get too many immigrants from one area, into one area, and you get resistance or backlash. So you want tribalistic pooling, but not flooding. Some pooling allows for pocketing and areas that add flavor to your society. Too much, and those sub-communities can become too strong, too isolated, preventing (or slowing) integration and mixing. (And that varies by culture as well). We call that sociology.

So to have a good immigration policy that doesn't have backlash, you need: (a) filtering from different classes (b) at a rate that society can adapt to (c) controls on where they're all going (nice dispersement and integration with society.

How society reacts to immigrants is directly based on those ratios and controls

If it's hard to get here from one country: say India or China. The most common way to get here is via H1-B program or education visa, then guess what? That filter means we're getting the best and the brightest and most motivated. The people you get will likely be the most educated, hardest workers, and from the upper classes of their society. More young and makers. And those sub-cultures will have lower crimes than their homelands (and maybe than we have), and society will generally reflect those positive attributes with a positive view of that culture. "Send more, and bring more Chinese food and Tika Masala".

There will be some tribalistic resentment of "other" (outsider), and ethnic stereotyping on physical traits or speech -- but for the most part, society adapts pretty quickly to "good people that pay their taxes and are a net benefit to society". Especially if like India, they speak the language -- and while they keep some traditions, they also integrate well. And other than occasionally insensitive mocking, for the most part, they integrate and become part of the fabric quickly.

Indian integration into the west coast has been one of the fastest and lowest frictioned in the history of civilization, as far as I can tell. Chinese has been slower, with more barriers, but a lot of that came from both language barriers, and that the first waves were lowest skilled workers (coolies), and it was a different time. (But as later generations pushed for higher education, and have climbed the social strata, it's only gotten better). Thus friction today between the Chinese immigrants and society is pretty low. Other Asians today seem to have benefited from the early Chinese (and lesser Japanese) waves, and other than some initial friction with the deluge of Vietnamese refugees, for the most part, it seems like Asian-American integration is going well.

I’m not saying the H1-B or other programs aren’t abused. Or there aren’t flakes mixed in. All government run programs either start fairly incompetent, or slide into it, after a few decades of incompetence and the wrong incentives. But the ratios of good to bad in these screened immigration programs are higher than the alternative.

Language and cultural barriers can make that harder, but America is the most welcoming country on the planet. That doesn't mean humans aren't tribalistic humans, and that everything is always wonderful. But for the most part, people love different foods and culture (in moderation). And if the rate of change is slow but steady, people learn to cope and get alone.

Just because a little is good, doesn’t mean a lot is better

The other side of all this, is if it's too easy to get here from another country: say visiting from Mexico and just staying, then guess what? That lack of filter and controls means you are getting a few of the motivated workers -- but you're also getting a lot of the least educated, and many that are fleeing their criminal backgrounds or just the criminality of their own corrupt country.

The problem is, if you're getting too many of the poor, criminals, and those that didn't have to work hard enough to get here, then you get too much pooling and creating communities within communities (that are resented by neighboring communities). They came from high crime country, with a strong distrust of policia, so even if they only bring us the average crime and corruption of their community back home, that average is still worse than ours, and thus makes things worse.

Q: So what happens?
A: You get societal resentment, backlash, and real xenophobia or at least distrust, and more open mocking of certain groups. And that causes a polarization and friction, as those groups rightly don't like being treated that way. You get MORE classism/racism/segregation if you exceed the rate of absorption... and that rate of absorption slows based on which classes and educations you're drawing on.

If politicians keep ignoring those ratios (not controlling them), eventually you get open warfare and apartheid (of sorts, like in France or Germany). This is partly what gangs are: marking borders and turf within countries.

This is not caused by racist elements in society, but by bad immigration policies and liberal "open borders" stupidity. The racist elements are at least partly (if not mostly) reflection of those failures.

So the point isn't that I hate Mexicans or latin Americans. I was practically raised by them. (I had two working parents, and live in house keepers that were often from south or central america). And many of them were fleeing bad stuff, and were good people. But if you want them to stand a chance in this country, you can't stack the rules against them by allowing so many in, with so few controls, that the U.S. becomes like the progressive utopias that the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, and much of Europe is becoming. Where too many, from too few groups, and often from the bottom, are giving their cultures/communities bad names and causing backlash and resentments that will take many decades (or more) to get over. All because the ruling elite can't figure out that while immigration is important, it's the filters that make it successful or not.

Why you picking on Mexico?

Catapults: making illegal aliens Mexican again.

Mexico has some beautiful places, and great people. I grew up with some very high class Mexican's: ones that had more money than we did, pushed their kids for education, and the latino culture has a lot of family bonds and good values. The problem is they are not the majority of people who are coming here illegally. Mexico also has wider swaths of corruption, criminality and shit-hole slums. The people most likely to leave and come to the U.S. illegally, aren't coming from the best places and with the most resources. Again, it's about balances.

That doesn't mean all Mexicans are anything: (see What is an 'ism?: it's not racial, it's cultural). Even if we assume most Mexicans are very good people, doing what I would do, if I was them (fleeing that shithole socialist corruptocracy, and coming to a land of more opportunities). Government has a responsibility to control immigration.

I don't begrudge them for trying. I begrudge our leadership for not making it easier to get here legally, AND harder to come illegally, and trying to put some filters and controls in place to prevent backlash mentioned above, by controlling upper vs. lower classes, controlling rates, and where they settle. You can swamp our systems and local tolerances -- and that's not their fault, but ours (governments) for not doing better.

And those upper class Mexicans I grew up with, were more classist than I am, and certainly didn't like the flood of unwashed masses bringing gangs and stereotypes (that they got them grouped in with the lowest dregs of their culture

This all applies to muslim immigrants as well, though with a few exceptions (like in Michigan), there's enough diversity of muslims, not coming from any one place, to cause the bigger problems. But if you let in too large of waves of refugees from one place, and you don't filter well, they could easily become more of a problem than any other culture -- partly because of their desires to NOT integrate (having to do with religious segregation as well as cultural). Again, that doesn't mean I don't like Muslims, it means you have to balance how fast they come in, from where, to where, and how fast society can adapt to them (and they can adapt to their new society). If you don't, they get excluded from opportunities, and resent the society for it.

Rape Tree

Main article: Rape Tree

Rape Tree's are not horny trees that molest passers by, it's a real phenomenon where somewhere around 80-90% of women or girl illegal immigrants (who do the coyote/desert route), are forced to do sexual acts for the coyote, and/or are left for dead. To add insult to sexual assault, they often hang a piece of clothing on a tree, like notching a bedpost (or putting a notch in the Resolute desk, if you're a Clinton or a Kennedy). So out in the deserts between Mexico and the U.S. are these gruesome decorations, to let you know the cost of Democrats immigration policies.

Why am I blaming the Democrats? Because they are responsible, yet blame the other side, and take no responsibility for their policies. America is attractive to people south of our border, with few opportunities and living/working in corrupt pseudo-socialist (or actual socialist) countries. They naturally will risk life, limb and rape to come here. I empathize: I would too, if I was in their situation. So we both care about these people. But you have two choices (a) try to be more compassionate towards illegal immigrants (b) make it as hard/costly for them as possible. The former sounds more compassionate to the simple minded, but anyone with a basic understanding of economic or human nature knows that more compassionate you are to the illegals (the looser the punishment, more aide you give them, etc), then the more will come... and be raped or die on the way.

Applying common sense (something Democrats don't do), means that sealing the border, rounding up the illegals, and making it more costly to break the law to come here -- as that means fewer will try: and you save lives (or rapes) and choke the demand for human trafficking. More will obey immigration laws, wait in line, and come here in ways that gives them more legal protections, less exploitation, and less rape. So which is really more compassionate?


Main article: Cagegate

Does America break up families, keep kids in cages, and abuse illegal immigrants? Obviously, not enough or there would be far fewer illegal immigrants. (They're far more looped into the risks than the average Joe). The facts are this is rare, temporary, this has been done forever (and under the Obama and Clinton administrations), and the idea that criminals shouldn't be separated from their kids is absurd. Under the Democrats reasoning, for domestic crime, it is fine to separate families. But for foreign invaders and perpetrators should get special exceptions. But a nation without laws is no longer a nation. And a media that omits context and biases their stories, like NYT and NYMag did on this one, are no longer journalists.

Illegal Immigrant Problems

When Trump says that Mexico is not sending their best and brightest as illegal immigrants, the left loses their nut. That's racism (shhhh... nevermind that Mexican is not a race, and that he had no complaints about legal immigrants, it's close enough for the left). The bigger question, is it true? Does illegal immigration have costs and consequences or not? (How many examples) Are their averages better or worse than the general population? Since the rational know that the point is valid, and the irrational polemics can't argue the facts, they try to shout down the charge with "RACIST"... otherwise they might have to address the point that there are costs.


Illegal Aliens stealing our jobs.
  1. Americans don't hate refugees and migrants. From 1968 until today the U.S. took in about 60% of the entire world's resettled refugees. More than every other country in the world combined.
  2. Asylum seekers are welcome to seek asylum legally. That's going to one of our embassies, or visiting on a travel visa and then asking for asylum, or going to our border and saying, "I seek asylum" and starting the process. All those are in play, and we accept about a million immigrants a year. (Something like 33 million in America are immigrants). What many on the right are complaining about is people who illegally hire human traffickers to break the law, and smuggle them illegally into the country and THEN they are arrested. And THEN they have been coached to claim they are seeking asylum. And when the cases are reviewed: between 80-90% of them turn out to be lying (about their backstories, need for asylum, or that they aren't criminals). That's what this is about -- not for being asylum seekers, but for breaking the laws and jumping the line.
  3. Asylum is not a human right. It is something that countries can choose to grant or not. I'm for it. But I'm not for pretending words mean something they do not.
  4. Remember, it was the Democrats in America that were responsible for Native American slaughters (under Andrew Jackson), who created the Chinese exclusion acts, interned the Japanese, and created the quotas for immigration in the first place. They're also the ones to defend breaking the law by using human traffickers to smuggle yourself illegally. Conservatives say if you come in legally, in a variety of ways, then you're welcome. Since Democrats can't refute history and fact, they try to change the subject and gaslight, claiming "Republicans want to separate families", or "Republicans hate immigration". If Democrats had good arguments, they wouldn't have to lie and distort every point. They would just tell the truth and let the others decide. Since they do the opposite, they must not have very good points.
The Wall
The Mexico-American border is the most heavily crossed border in the world, both legally and illegally, and has a rich history of the Democrats promising to fix it or illegal immigration, then undermining it. The Democrats can only win elections if they have the young, dumb and disenfranchised voting for them -- so they do everything they can to make sure that base (including uneducated illegals) can get in, and be exploited, and exploit our system. That guarantees them money/power.





  • I'm for more immigration: especially from the young and educated (the makers).
  • I'm for more filtering, and being quick to filter out and remove the criminal elements.
  • I'm for the dispersement and diversification (with some pooling), to help society adapt, and not create a tiered and segregated system.

Because that will reduce backlash, fits economic realities, and will guarantee that we continue to remain a welcoming and open culture. While opening too much (and losing balance) will do the opposite.

But to do any of that, we first need to accept that:

  • you do not have a "right" to come here, we will let you come here, because we want to share our prosperity
  • countries have a right to limit immigration and protect the rights/property of the people already here
  • open borders are a brain-dead back fucking idea

And that once we're past denying those realities, we're just negotiating the rate of immigration, and how we will filter -- without screaming racism. Either that, or we can stay in denial until the idiots get what they want, and we're more like the open friction and racism that is prevalent in Europe.


📚 References
If climbing walls makes you a citizen, does breaking into houses make you a home owner or family?