Big themes for the 21st century

[Ecurb]

You and I don't have to care about either of them because we don't live in Italy. Tax-paying Italians should be concerned with who immigrates to Italy, however, and they have that right. Italian nationals don't owe anything to anyone, and they can't be expected to run their country as a charity. That is not what most people want.

Well, we live in the world, and it's reasonable to care about humans everywhere. Citizens of every country have a "right" to be concerned about who immigrates into their country. However, (based mainly on my experience as an American), many people demonize the immigrants, focus on the problems they bring with them and not on the dynamism and economic advantages that come with them, and are unrealistic about solutions to the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Obviously, countries can pass whatever immigration laws they want to pass -- but such laws don't always limit the number of immigrants. Supposedly, about 11 million illegal immigrants live in the U.S. (I'm sure it's not so easy to count them). Here in the Western U.S., many farmers absolutely rely on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants to run their businesses. In addition, although we can pass laws making immigration illegal, it seems that we cannot keep immigrants out of the country. Xenophobia and racism drum up antipathy for the immigrants, but do little to eliminate illegal immigration.

After all, why should a Mexican or a Nigerian be morally (as opposed to practically) constrained by the laws of American or Italy? Should potential immigrants think, "Clopin has a 'right' to tell me whether I can live in Canada."? Clearly, in the case of the 11 million illegals in the U.S., they don't feel constrained by our immigration laws. However, perhaps by legalizing and legitimizing the process, or by granting voting rights to illegals already here, we can make them feel more like Americans, and they will work more diligently to improve their lives, and those of their neighbors and children. As I said, it's a complicated issue, and I don't have any certain answers (besides, I don't want to talk politics here, just to make a general point).

IN addition, as waltzin points out, immigration creates change, change produces cultural dynamism, and cultural dynamism produces (perhaps) good literature.

[easy75]

Well, we live in the world, and it's reasonable to care about humans everywhere. Citizens of every country have a "right" to be concerned about who immigrates into their country. However, (based mainly on my experience as an American), many people demonize the immigrants, focus on the problems they bring with them and not on the dynamism and economic advantages that come with them, and are unrealistic about solutions to the problems that come with illegal immigration.

Obviously, countries can pass whatever immigration laws they want to pass -- but such laws don't always limit the number of immigrants. Supposedly, about 11 million illegal immigrants live in the U.S. (I'm sure it's not so easy to count them). Here in the Western U.S., many farmers absolutely rely on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants to run their businesses. In addition, although we can pass laws making immigration illegal, it seems that we cannot keep immigrants out of the country. Xenophobia and racism drum up antipathy for the immigrants, but do little to eliminate illegal immigration.

After all, why should a Mexican or a Nigerian be morally (as opposed to practically) constrained by the laws of American or Italy? Should potential immigrants think, "Clopin has a 'right' to tell me whether I can live in Canada."? Clearly, in the case of the 11 million illegals in the U.S., they don't feel constrained by our immigration laws. However, perhaps by legalizing and legitimizing the process, or by granting voting rights to illegals already here, we can make them feel more like Americans, and they will work more diligently to improve their lives, and those of their neighbors and children. As I said, it's a complicated issue, and I don't have any certain answers (besides, I don't want to talk politics here, just to make a general point).

IN addition, as waltzin points out, immigration creates change, change produces cultural dynamism, and cultural dynamism produces (perhaps) good literature.

I agree with this. All of these modern mass migrations are different, based on the receiving country's reaction to the influx. As ecurb points out, to date in the U.S. laws have not been enough to stop the migration, so we are left in a flux. We have tons of immigrants without legal status. This pretty much guarantees that they will not be able to contribute as much to society as full fledged citizens. They have no SSN so they can't pay into that system, or, if they have acquired stolen SSN's so they can work, they pay in but cannot draw out. This is just one area where the government is losing potential revenue, and there are many, many more. Whatever happens in Europe I think the best course would be to not do what the U.S. has done. Make a decision. Either strictly enforce borders, or accept the incoming immigrants with a solid plan to integrate them into society. The middle ground isn't working great for "us" or "them" in this country.

From a literary standpoint I think an influx of new culture into any existing one can only be positive. We got Nabakov through immigration, which was great for our literary credentials.
And if you start thinking about prominent U.S. authors that are here ultimately as a result of immigration, the list is formidable. Also, the experiences of immigration have provided the inspiration for great novels the world over.

[Clopin]

Well, we live in the world, and it's reasonable to care about humans everywhere. Citizens of every country have a "right" to be concerned about who immigrates into their country. However, (based mainly on my experience as an American), many people demonize the immigrants, focus on the problems they bring with them and not on the dynamism and economic advantages that come with them, and are unrealistic about solutions to the problems that come with illegal immigration.

It's reasonable to care on a personal level, but it's not necessarily reasonable to direct government policy in that direction. A full seventy percent of Italians feel that immigration is a big problem and they will have their say before you or I. Since the Italian government is a democracy intended to reflect the will of the people (Italian nationals, not all people) what the people actually want should be important.

Immigrants, and especially illegal immigrants who will work for very low wages, provide the average domestic national with no more economic advantage than a manufacturing factory in China does. Sure, we all learned from Mitt Romney during his campaign that 'corporations are people', but a massive hike in immigration isn't exactly a dynamic (whatever that means) prospect for low income Americans.

Obviously, countries can pass whatever immigration laws they want to pass -- but such laws don't always limit the number of immigrants. Supposedly, about 11 million illegal immigrants live in the U.S. (I'm sure it's not so easy to count them). Here in the Western U.S., many farmers absolutely rely on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants to run their businesses. In addition, although we can pass laws making immigration illegal, it seems that we cannot keep immigrants out of the country. Xenophobia and racism drum up antipathy for the immigrants, but do little to eliminate illegal immigration.

Some countries are easier to sneak into than others. I believe Singapore has been very successful in curbing illegal immigration through adopting some pretty serious policies.

After all, why should a Mexican or a Nigerian be morally (as opposed to practically) constrained by the laws of American or Italy? Should potential immigrants think, "Clopin has a 'right' to tell me whether I can live in Canada."? Clearly, in the case of the 11 million illegals in the U.S., they don't feel constrained by our immigration laws. However, perhaps by legalizing and legitimizing the process, or by granting voting rights to illegals already here, we can make them feel more like Americans, and they will work more diligently to improve their lives, and those of their neighbors and children. As I said, it's a complicated issue, and I don't have any certain answers (besides, I don't want to talk politics here, just to make a general point).

Indeed, and why should a Muslim immigrant be morally constrained by the national law of his adoptive country? After all, laws are no more inherent and natural than nations or borders. Should potential immigrants think "Clopin has a 'right' to tell me whether I can follow Sharia law?"

IN addition, as waltzin points out, immigration creates change, change produces cultural dynamism, and cultural dynamism produces (perhaps) good literature.

Does it? 19th century Russian literature is much discussed and beloved on here, and it was written without any of this dynamism, produced by immigration, that is apparently so important to literature and society.

[Ecurb]

Russian literature flourished in a period of dynamic flux, Clopin. The freeing of the serfs in 1861 was a fairly major upheaval in Russian society (although there was little immigration). Fathers and Sons -- 1862; War and Peace 1869, Anna Karenina 1877, Crime and Punishment 1866, Brothers K 1880; -- all were published within 20 years of a dynamic change in Russian society -- and are perhaps the five greatest Russian novels.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be (morally) constrained by rules of law which he had no part in approving. The consent of the governed is a principle that gives moral weight to the rule of law. That's one of the problems with illegal aliens (and other disenfranchised groups). They don't feel "invested" in the rule of law. Of course I don't approve of Sharia law, and if I sneaked into Saudi Arabia, I might not follow it (if I thought I could avoid the draconian punishments getting caught would involve). Nonetheless, people must follow their own principles, especially if they have never sworn allegiance to other principles (I think immigrants must take some sort of oath to become U.S. citizens.)

I'm no expert, but I disagree that cheap immigrant labor isn't better for the U.S. economy than cheap Chinese labor. After all, most of the owners of American farms and businesses are Americans -- they're benefiting from the cheap labor (instead of Chines business owners). They're also spending their profits in America instead of China, as are their employees, legal and illegal. True: the consumer can get cheap goods made in China (although agricultural goods are often better fresh), but that's not the only benefit accruing from the success of American businesses. A rising tide lifts all ships.

Obviously, I have no say in Italian immigration policy. However, that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about what constitutes the best way for Italy to proceed, both in terms of its national interests and, more generally, of humane compassion. Why would it?

[Clopin]

Russian literature flourished in a period of dynamic flux, Clopin. The freeing of the serfs in 1861 was a fairly major upheaval in Russian society (although there was little immigration). Fathers and Sons -- 1862; War and Peace 1869, Anna Karenina 1877, Crime and Punishment 1866, Brothers K 1880; -- all were published within 20 years of a dynamic change in Russian society -- and are perhaps the five greatest Russian novels.

Fair enough. However, I'm still not sure that immigration constitutes the sort of dynamic flux which you suggest will bear fruit with the increased production of great literature. And, even if it does, let's not get into the habit of arguing government policy based on the quantity of great literature that implementation of said policies might yield. War and conflict may also lead to the penning of great works, but I doubt many people would suggest that we need more of either.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be (morally) constrained by rules of law which he had no part in approving. The consent of the governed is a principle that gives moral weight to the rule of law.

Maybe so, but, practically speaking, where do you suppose this line of reasoning will end up? I should think the result would be a frustrated domestic population comprised of citizens who increasingly hate and mistrust immigrants; not something which anyone should want. Sure, people from Africa or the Middle East are not (in their mind) morally obligated to follow the rule of law in Europe or North America, but by that token Europeans and North Americans are not morally obligated to allow them, as foreign nationals, to abode within the borders of their nations. I guess you don't think much of nations, but the reality is that they exist and that the domestic populations of said nations have every right to engender policies that suit their needs and wants; and nobody needs or wants an indigent immigrant population who will not follow the rules, customs and laws of the land, and who will not integrate.

That's one of the problems with illegal aliens (and other disenfranchised groups). They don't feel "invested" in the rule of law.

Of course I don't approve of Sharia law, and if I sneaked into Saudi Arabia, I might not follow it (if I thought I could avoid the draconian punishments getting caught would involve). Nonetheless, people must follow their own principles, especially if they have never sworn allegiance to other principles (I think immigrants must take some sort of oath to become U.S. citizens.)

So is it any wonder that people are mistrustful toward or outright dislike immigrants? legal or otherwise.

I'm no expert, but I disagree that cheap immigrant labor isn't better for the U.S. economy than cheap Chinese labor. After all, most of the owners of American farms and businesses are Americans -- they're benefiting from the cheap labor (instead of Chines business owners). They're also spending their profits in America instead of China, as are their employees, legal and illegal. True: the consumer can get cheap goods made in China (although agricultural goods are often better fresh), but that's not the only benefit accruing from the success of American businesses. A rising tide lifts all ships.

My apologies, I meant to imply that the manufacturing plants, while located in China, were still owned by U.S companies. You're correct that American owners of huge, multinational, corporations are the prime (only?) recipients of the supposed benefits of cheap immigrant labour, but we disagree as to whether this is a good or bad thing.

[Virgil]

Love and death.

Yep. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Ecurb]

Actually, Clopin, I have no opinion about whether immigration (or other changes in society) makes for good literature -- I just mentioned it because someone else had been talking about it, and because I did think Russian literature MIGHT support their case.

In general, I think we live in a global community. Although it is only natural that we support our own families more than other people's, our own towns more than other towns, and our own nations more than other nations, I think this natural tendency can be (and often is) overdone. In addition, I think hostility toward immigrants, often justified on the basis of protecting the jobs of native citizens, is sometimes the result of fear of change and fear of outsiders (and, in fact, sometimes racism). Compassion and generosity suggest that we share our great wealth, although I'll grant that it's also legitimate to protect the way of life that has created it.

[TRIGGERSIDEWYS]

Actually, Clopin, I have no opinion about whether immigration (or other changes in society) makes for good literature -- I just mentioned it because someone else had been talking about it, and because I did think Russian literature MIGHT support their case.

I couldn't find anything but didn't go in depth..

In general, I think we live in a global community.

Going to be seeing a lot to do with this because our agriculture is in such an interesting time.