The counter arguement would be that money isn't everything or at least doesn't overcome the benefits of a more homogeneous society.

Secondarily with the rise of instant communication via computers and improvements in the movements of goods, it isn't necessary for people to move to other countries in order to raise their standard of living, they merely need to mimic the legal framework of the wealthier countries.

Exactly. The real argument is racial (or homogeneity, in polite society).

If they want to come here and adopt our language and our culture, great---welcome aboard.

But if you want to bring your old culture with you, and continue speaking your non-English language, well why don't you just stay there. The reason your old country stinks and ours shines is the culture.

"they merely need to mimic the legal framework of the wealthier countries..."

All this talk about the positives and negatives of opening borders, and H-man's comment made me wonder for a second; why don't the Mexicans and the rest of Latin America simply adopt such a legal framework?
Well, they have adopted legal frameworks, but it hardly mimics our own. NAFTA, the IMF, and the World Bank are the reasons that millions protest globalization. But alas, instead of examining the crooked trade policies that produce the constant flow of labor into the US, it apparently makes more economic sense to harness the power of these rivers of slaves, and not question why they keep showing up here.

OJ
Homogeneity in acceptance of the ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence isn't racial, is it? Of course without allowing our present citizenship to exert control over borders, we will not be able to make that type of determination until it's too late.

Macduff

You are a real work of art. The "millions protest(ing) globalization" are White college slackers/students in their punk stage...and of course the effete French who have been in that stage for 200 years. I don't what your problem with the IMF/World Bank is. They seem like efficient institutions for the purpose of shoveling US taxpayer money to the third world.

Lay on, Macduff, and damn'd be him that first cries, "Hold, enough!"

Of course, oj is able to discern between race and culture. He must be only pretending to confound these concepts. The gambit is to accuse one who condemns unreason and randomness of "racism," which, of course is itself the racist position.

It was the 19th century racialist theorists--deGobineau, Chamberlain and all the rest, who would have said that persons of African descent have it "in their blood" to behave like the evil tribesmen in an old Tarzan movie.

The non-racist position is to judge savage behavior because of its savagery, not because of the color of individuals who practice it.

The observation that the present wetback regime is based on cynical exploitation is very well taken. The exploitation is two-fold. The United States first benefits through the expropriation of human capital. We allow in workers ready and eager to produce in substitution for the millions and millions of victims of the Kindermord, which victims would have required years of childrearing and education. The sending countries exploit the system by means of the wealth sent back in support of their corrupt economies, without their having had to adopt rational legal and economic institutions.

The downside of this system, other than its sinfulness, is the cultural dilution mentioned above. This ill effect is subtle and gradual, sort of like the ill effects of acceptance of sexual perversion, which means it is hard to prove and easy to deflect.

They're members of our culture, they just happen to be brown. That's all nativists/nationalists care about.

Mac:

Because they're reacting to the fact that it's an Anglo-American system they have to adopt. It's the same reason France would rather die than change.

H-man: Keep telling yourself that it is just white slackers and effeminate Frenchmen. If you repeat the stereotypes long enough, the tooth fairy might make it true.
Or, you could take note that the Zapatistas declared war against Mexico the day after NAFTA was passed. Or the string of anti-NAFTA candidates elected all across Latin America. Or even the skin color of protesters around the world.

OJ: It isn't an Anglo-American system anymore. The only way it has ever been Anglo-American has been at the high cost of excluding and marginalizing the majority of minorities. The only American identity is the lack of a singular identity.

Democracy/Capitalism/Protestantism is the Anglo model. Every society is adopting it in some measure. Those that combine it with a monotheistic religious basis will endure. The rest are toast.