Maybe so. Sounds like the Indians don't think they can be a great nation without
deporting them.



Twenty Million people is a whole lot of people to move. I hope they can do it w/o hurting too many. Of course, I guess, back in Bangladesh, they probably face starvation.



If it came to the U.S. and our illegal immigrants, I wouldn't necessarily oppose deporting most of them. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing it happen, nor would it be illegal, and as far as I'm concerned, except for some special circumstance, it wouldn't be unethical either.



Why would it be different for the Indians to do the same? Is the sheer magnitude? Or are you convinced that in India mass death will result?

W - Orrin can speak for himself, but perhaps his comment has to do with this - the Bangladeshis are Muslim and it's the Hindu nationalist party pushing this deportation. The issue is likely to increase religious conflict.

It would be despicable for us to forcibly deport our own immigrants, even the illegals.

I agree. India certainly does have a very good chance of developing into one of the world's great nations.



In addition, deporting its illegal immigrants would hasten that development.

I don't think the prospect of a lot of dead

Bangladeshis would give the elite Hindus much

grief. After all, they engineered the Bengal '

famine of 1943-44, which was temporarily

effective in reducing population pressure in

West Bengal. 3 million dead.



But before we start elevating this to a high

moral plane, we might well ask: are they

a security threat to India? They are, as pj

says, Moslems.

I think if you look at the mass deaths inflicted on Hindus by Muslims in the past you might understand better how Indians feel about Muslims. They have been putting up with attacks from Muslims a lot longer than we have

John:



Odd that we've developed farther than anyone else despite being predominantly a nation of "unofficial" immigrants.

John Ray:



Presumably then you'd support an aboriginal movement to deport Anglos?

Orrin, I'm generally pro-immigrant, but why would deporting our illegals impose such a hardship? Most of them cross regularly back to Mexico - so the trip back isn't a big deal - and if we let them come back legally, what's the big deal? I would support increased enforcement against illegal immigrants along with relaxed immigration laws.

I'd support deporting every person in America whose family arrived here without express consent of the government or deporting only those who are guilty of criminal offenses other than immigrating illegally. But rounding up Mexicans, which is all that any of this is code for, and driving them across the border like a herd of steers, smacks of Nazism.

Why the soft spot for illegal immigration? I don't question anybody's motive for wanting to come here, I just want it done legally. One reason people want to come here is to take advantage of the freedom to pursue "life, liberty" and etcetera. But with the freedoms come responsibilities, and it doesn't matter to me if lesson number one is "don't break immigration laws, or you get deported." Deportation for illegal entry isn't despicable in the least.



Now if you're talking about some sort of targeted deportation, things get squirrely indeed. But just because Mexicans are the largest group of illegals, and a large-scale drive to deport illegals would impact more illegal Mexicans than others, isn't to me a good reason to oppose it. The laws are on the books; if the INS actually started enforcing them, that wouldn't make it fascistic.



Also, I'm generally pro-immigration, but I'm completely unsentimental about it. It's only good insofar as it's fully and wholly good for the country, and these days it seems mass immigration is nothing more than a convenient wage/labor exploitation racket.

I don't believe in immigration quotas. I'd bar entry for specific undesirables--criminals, political radicals, etc.--but allow anyone else who wants to come.Then give them five or seven years or whatever to learn English, pass a civics exam and renounce their prior citizenship and become Americans, or else go back to their native land.

Too harsh, Orrin. I know immigrants -- one was

my next door neighbor -- who are valuable

members of the community even though she

never learned English in 60 years here.



She gets along, harms nobody.



I'm with Whack. A nation either is sovereign

and, among other things, controls its border;

or it isn't.



Mexico, for example, isn't. About two presidents

ago, its president warned the U.S. against

enforcing its own laws. What he meant was,

Mexico was unable to maintain its own

authority.



All things considered, you have to wonder

about the state of a country where 20 million

people flee to Assam for a better life.

Harry:



One suspects she'd have little trouble learning the language.

It's a free country. Used to be, anyway.

But it's not your country until you become a citizen.

When she came here, it was impossible for

her to become a citizen. She was Japanese.



This is the 50th anniversary of the McCarran

Act, by the way. One you ought to be

celebrating, Orrin.

Why? I've never transported a minor across state lines.

McCarran, not Mann.



And I thought you were a lawyer.

But I'm not 70.



Yes, we heartily approve of both acts.