Re: Greens ***-out on immigration

John/IZE wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:41:56 +0000, R Philip Dowds wrote:


People crossing borders into places they don't belong can be a very serious problem. Look, for instance, at two fast-growing states, Nevada and Utah. They have plenty of land, of course, but are running out of water. For protecting these resource-constrained areas, would it not be a good idea to also prohibit inter-State migration, such that people would have to live in the State in which they were born? Maybe even in the same town?


It also sounds like a ridiculous idea to me and an extremely repressive
one at that.


Well, maybe same town is a bit over the top, but ... look at Cape Cod.
Many people on Cape Cod (which is also running out of water) believe
that their area is full, and seek to prevent further in-migration.
Lacking a viable program of border patrols, they are forced to rely upon
indirect mechanisms, like zoning, sewer connections, and parking.

Why can't people just understand where they belong, and stay there?


It's called earning a living. You have to often move to get a job. Besides
who's to say that just because a person was born or raised in a particular
town they have to stay there forever. That's completely unnatural. Even
animals migrate from place to place.

Chon

In our globalized economy, capital is free to chase all over the world looking for cheap labor and materials. You seem to think that it's OK for labor to chase all over the world looking for good jobs. Are you one of those supporters of free markets?

RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

PS: Due to nonexistent global warming, animals *are* migrating. In huge numbers. Plants too.

PPS: Re jobs, Cape Cod has an odd problem. It desperately needs workers to serve the summer tourist season, but it won't allow any housing to accommodate them. Go figure.





RPD / Cambridge
Facts can be your friends if you treat them right.

- wrote:


fred wrote:


If the Sierra Club represents the failure of environmental
organizations regarding population growth then there is no hope. Any
fool recognizes the damage done by population growth.


"John Ladasky" <ladasky@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Sigh. There's that non-sequitur again. Population growth and
immigration are two different issues. The former pertains to how many
people there are. The latter pertains to where they are.



You're a fool, Mr. Ladasky, a danger to yourself and others.
When
53% of the population increase is traced to immigration then it
has become -THE- causative factor and deserves both (a)
regulation, and (b) enforcement. Apparently you do not understand
what "breaking the law" means. Immigration restrictions are in
effect to reduce the likelihood of criminals wandering across the
border to escape prosecution, to prevent the spread of disease, to
prevent the spread of poverty causative of crime, and to prevent
the ethos of irresponsibility toward the planet. You reduce the
pressure on the pressure cooker there, and it will just boil over
again.

Stupid idiot, Mr. Ladasky. I hope that you are forced out of
the
Green Party. For many voters, immigration ranks as the #1 issue.
When 73% are opposed to illegal immigration and want crackdowns
the political parties had better listen.




- regards
- jb

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans 'working overtime' to defeat immigration opponent
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4980404,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------




.

Loading