Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immigration Bill is Un-American
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 115 (414624)
08-05-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2007 1:53 AM


Re: Reality versus talking points
You're not getting it.
The morality of what the US does is entirely independent of what other countries do, just like the morality of what you do is entirely independent of the morality of what I do. The question is about the morality of US policy with regard to immigration as a whole.
Which is generous in comparison! The US has some of the most liberal immigration policies of all the nations. It seems that you just won't be satisfied until you hand over the keys of the kingdom.
Generous in comparison IS NOT THE QUESTION
REPEAT: The question is about the morality of US policy with regard to immigration as a whole. Can you tell me why it is moral and just to treat 'Person A' different from 'Person B' when the only difference is an accident of birth?
Are you advocating a totally free border? If so, don't you think that presents a problem with groups, such as Al Qaeda, posing as Mexican immigrants to infiltrate the country?
LOL never forget to bring up terrorism to justify closing the mexican border when that was not the way they got here. Your position must be weak if you appeal to consequences (a logical fallacy) and fear mongering. The US did not become great by hiding from fear.
Immigration has nothing to do with terrorism. The question is how we treat ALL those who want to become Americans.
If the government could sort of whimsically create new jobs, now would be the time to do it. I can only think of a handful.
Compare your recent administration with the Clinton administration. It didn't create jobs but an atmosphere where jobs flourished. The current administration gave away billions of dollars in tax refunds - supposedly to stimulate the economy - with no accounting for where and how those funds were actually spent to stimulate the economy. Give away the same amount in equal amounts to every taxpayer and see what the difference is ... because the economy is the movement of money not the putting of money in rich pockets.
If you are serious about creating jobs you do what President Franklin D. Roosevelt did with the New Deal (as mentioned in Message 1 btw, you know part of the OP for this thread?)
You mean pay someone whether or not they actually work? How would that prosper anyone?
We are already paying for them. It's a matter of dignity. Because a moral society takes care of it's own.
There are countless immigrants who obtain visas legally. It is not an easy process. Don't you think that it's a slap in the face to have the illegal immigrant more rights than the legal one? What does that say about our justice system?
That it is unnecessarily convoluted? That it makes things more difficult than necessary? That it doesn't give everyone a fair chance?
I repeat: any immigration policy that discriminates between individuals violates these American concepts of equality and rights, most especially the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Statue of Liberty
quote:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

The US was built on immigration without restrictions. It is what made America great.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 1:53 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-06-2007 12:06 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-06-2007 9:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 92 of 115 (414660)
08-05-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
08-04-2007 1:08 PM


Re: Reality versus talking points
I've yet to sift through the whole thread, but I saw something I needed to clear up in this post. I may contribute more to the discussion when I get done reading.
Did you know that it is illegal in Mexico for a foreigner to by waterfront property? Only Mexicans can purchase waterfront property in Mexico. Given the overwhelming generosity of this nation accommodating people's of all cultures, its a slap in the face to have the Mexican government turn around and be hypocritical.
Where did you get that idea from?
There is a substantial ex-pat community in Mexico, especially among retirees.
They even buy beachfront property through a process called fideicomiso
You might want to do some research on your claims instead of just taking Michael Savage's (or whoever) word for it.
Here's a few more links I got from a simple "americans moving mexico" google search.
CBS News article from yesterday
Inside Baja
Pacific News article from 2003

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-04-2007 1:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 7:13 PM Jaderis has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 115 (414681)
08-05-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by anglagard
08-05-2007 6:38 AM


Re: Reality versus talking points
Somehow I doubt that Clinton personally built any 90 mile wall, I think he must have had help from Congress.
Its a figure of speech, Ang. Just like saying Bush is hiking up gas prices. Do I mean that to mean that he is single-handedly doing so? Of course not. Do I mean that Bill Clinton single-handedly was out along the Tijuana border building a wall by himself in the middle of desert? Obviously not.
Now there is supposed to be a 700 mile wall. Perhaps it is time to build bridges instead of walls, seeing how it would be cheaper and all.
Bridges are generally built over water, not dry land, which 98% of the border consists of. Secondly, there has been talk about building a wall, but no resolution has been passed or denied at this point.
What this means is that the money spent for a wall would be better spent improving the economy of the border so that the supply/demand equation is addressed. You seem to want to lose the 'war' on illegal immigration the same way that one wants to lose the 'war' on drugs. It seems irrational that any discussion refuses to address demand.
The "demand" for what? Supply and demand is supposed to be reciprocal, not one sided. What do we gain by letting mass immigrants flow through the border?
Exactly what it is doing now, people doing jobs that snooty Americans are too good to do.
Ah, right... because produce magically flew off the trees and into the stores before, right?
The problem is that certain American farmers and corporations are hiring illegal aliens and paying them disparaging wages. They can't get away with that for legal citizens. These bastards pit the immigrant against himself. They threaten them with the fear of deportation if they complain about their wage.
In essence, they're slaves. American authorities should be doing more to put a stop to it. With this much, I'm sure we are in agreement.
So, its not as if America has a shortage of willing able field workers because they're snooty. But if you want to truly change that perception, by all means go till the ground.
The only borders anywhere as long as the US border with either Canada or Mexico are those of Russia or China. Are you suggesting we imitate their tactics and make such immigration less desirable by offering bullets instead of bread?
Killing on sight is against the law. So, no, I'm not advocating that. I'm trying to get RAZD to address the issue that every country protects its borders. That includes both Canada and Mexico! Why should the United States be the sole exception?
Actually if the people here insist on continuing to elect politicians who support torture, disrespect the Constitution, attack science and technology to 'mollify' the religious fanatics and impoverish the future of their own children, it may be Canada that has to erect a wall to prevent a mass exodus from this nation.
Please stifle your activism for a more applicable thread. Or by the very least, don't simply talk about leaving because you're so disenchanted with the state of affairs-- just leave and be done with it. That way all parties win.
As I have said before, if this nation wants to stop illegal immigration they have two options, either create a legal route to address the supply/demand problem or all the rednecks can get off their fat ass and pick the fruit, clean the toilets, and roof the houses.
    legally.
    2. Americans can and do pick their own fruit, clean toilets, and roof houses. They are simply beat out of competition by the lowest bidder. But feel free to lead us by example.
There are plenty of jobs here, oil and windmills, we have trouble getting students to go to college because the money is so good outside. So I somewhat repeat, stop whining and start working or learning.
I work and am educated.
Well, I guess all the confederates who so loved this nation they revolted against it could all go on some moral crusade to conquer Mexico as they have chosen to in Iraq.
Some say America is too large as it is. How would consolidating land and acquiring millions of more mouths to feed help the situation?
Or would it be like everyone who tried to conquer China, they got absorbed? As for me rock and roll, I like real Mexican food, Catholics, brunettes, and the Spanish language.
Sweet! Have a gay old time down in Old Mexico.
Have her pick fruit?
We would, except that getting her to breath of her own volition, let alone actually work, is like pulling teeth.
quote:
You mean pay someone whether or not they actually work? How would that prosper anyone?
What like children or retirees? Do you have some kind of ethical code from Sparta or Nietzsche?
Umm, retirees payed into the benefits they are alloted to receive when they were actively working. Maybe you've seen it on your earnings statements? Its called SSI. As for children, I'm not into child labor. But since you're so fond of it, they are big on it down in Mexico, the country you speak so fondly of. Have at it.
I hope in 2008 you vote for solutions instead of the typical 'playing of the race card.'
Race card?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by anglagard, posted 08-05-2007 6:38 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Jaderis, posted 08-05-2007 7:15 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2007 7:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 99 by anglagard, posted 08-06-2007 1:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 100 by anglagard, posted 08-06-2007 2:41 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 115 (414694)
08-05-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jaderis
08-05-2007 3:37 PM


Re: Reality versus talking points
Where did you get that idea from?
Its well-known among Californians.
You can purchase land in Mexico, just not the land that anyone would really want. The restricted zones generally include beachfront property. And even when exceptions are made, you, as the buyer, don't actually retain the title.
The article I provided apparently outlines how some Americans have gotten around the prohibition by sleight of hand.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jaderis, posted 08-05-2007 3:37 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Jaderis, posted 08-05-2007 7:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 95 of 115 (414695)
08-05-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Reality versus talking points
Ah, right... because produce magically flew off the trees and into the stores before, right?
No. The agricultural jobs have nearly always been filled by (im)migrant labor (Hereis some interesting reading in CA migrant labor history). The more recent the immigrants, the more likely they were employed by cotton, fruit or other produce farms or by slaughterhouses. They didn't just work the back-breaking farm jobs either. They worked as maids, janitors, dishwashers, miners, coal shovelers, railroad layers, street sweepers, chimney sweeps,and any other dirty, exhausting, low paying job you can imagine. When the Irish came over, they took these jobs. When the Italians came over, they took these jobs. When the Chinese came over, they took these jobs. When the Poles came over, they took these jobs. When other Eastern Europeans came over, they took these jobs. When the Cubans came over they took these jobs. When the Haitians came over they took these jobs. When the Mexicans came over, they took these jobs.
And new immigrants most often still do wherever they come from.
And don't forget indentured labor and slavery! Many agricultural positions used to be filled by millions of African slaves in the South and a substantial amount of hard labor positions outside the South were filled by indentured laborers and free blacks. Of course, there wasn't much of a distinction in wages or working conditions for citizens, the only real difference being the "freedom" to find another shit job.
So don't try to pretend that immigrants are "stealing" good-paying American jobs.
{ABE: I am in no way shape or form saying that I think highly of the way the poor and immigrants have been treated by employers. Just pointing out that it is nothing new and that immigrants are doing the jobs they have always done. I think RAZD's OP proposal is one of the best ideas I've heard all day}
If you need to complain about something, complain about union-busters because unions exist to guarantee wages and good, safe working conditions. If the unions weren't being abolished then it wouldn't matter if there was a demand for certain jobs (i.e. construction) because wages would be guaranteed regardless.
Complain about outsourcing. Many out of work Americans wouldn't have to accept a lower-paying, non-union job with depressed wages and no benefits if their manufacturing job hadn't been shipped to China.
Better than complaining, DO something about it! Stop voting for people who put corporations' interests ahead of yours. Support your local unions and buy union goods. Buy locally grown produce/meat and stop supporting AgriBusiness. Don't buy sweatshop goods. Demand living wage legislation (local, state and/or federal). Educate your friends about the issue.
And last but not least, stop demonizing immigrants because they are NOT the problem. They (or, rather, the reasons why they come here in the first place) are a symptom of a MAJOR problem with how our system works.
I think another point that many anti-immigration proponents don't realize is that immigrants not only fill jobs (the same jobs that immigrants have always filled), but they also create jobs by expanding existing markets and creating whole new niche markets.
{ABE: I decided to respond to more of the post}
Its a figure of speech, Ang. Just like saying Bush is hiking up gas prices. Do I mean that to mean that he is single-handedly doing so? Of course not. Do I mean that Bill Clinton single-handedly was out along the Tijuana border building a wall by himself in the middle of desert? Obviously not.
I think anglagard's point was that Clinton had a majority Republican Congress who resented his very existence and that it is much easier to say Bush is responsible for the legislation passed in the last 6 years because Congress had a Bush-worshipping majority until last year.
I would have thought someone would question you on the relevance of Clinton in response to RAZD when he didn't bring him up. So I will.
NJ, what is the relevance of Clinton in this discussion. Do you think that everytime you say "Oh, well, Clinton did this!" liberals will automatically cave and say "Oh if CLINTON did it it must be GOOD!" You must be projecting Republican style hero worship onto the more sane among us.
From Message 89
You're right. There is no need for one because we don't have an immigration problem with Canada. In the unlikely event that Canadians start streaming across the border en masse, I'm pretty sure the heads of state would begin to consider erecting a wall.
You're completely missing the point!
Yes, the reason we don't "need" a wall along Canada is because we don't have a massive influx of immigrants from Canada.
Hmmm...the next logical question would be well what's different about Canada and our involvement with Canada. Why don't we have a massive influx of Canadians?
I would provide my answers, but I want to see if you have one. If you had thought at all about this you would not have stopped at "because we don't have an immigration problem with Canada."
Back to the original message (I got mixed up when I was looking up stuff you had said, but I couldn't let the above go unanswered).
Bridges are generally built over water, not dry land, which 98% of the border consists of.
It's a metaphorical bridge...
The "demand" for what? Supply and demand is supposed to be reciprocal, not one sided. What do we gain by letting mass immigrants flow through the border?
The demand for jobs. If there were no jobs for them they wouldn't be here. How many times does that have to be said?
As to what we get, we get a bigger market. I mean, they have to spend their money somewhere, right and spend it they do. Here's some info:
Immigrants and Housing
1994 report on immigration (out-of date in some respects but the points about labor and markets still stands).
Labor shortages in Arizona (Here's another one on the same issue)
Sacramento Business Journal article on immigrants creating jobs by demanding goods and services.
Do you need more? Cuz I can find them, but then again, so can you. Why don't you try researching your claims a bit more.
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 5:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 96 of 115 (414702)
08-05-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2007 7:13 PM


Re: Reality versus talking points
You can purchase land in Mexico, just not the land that anyone would really want. The restricted zones generally include beachfront property. And even when exceptions are made, you, as the buyer, don't actually retain the title.
The article I provided apparently outlines how some Americans have gotten around the prohibition by sleight of hand.
No, not by "sleight of hand", but right out in the open approved by Mexican law through the fideicomiso which the article you provided and the article I provided both attest to.
Through the fideicomiso a foreigner can buy property in the "Restricted Zone" through a Mexican bank. The bank retains the title as the "trustee" and the trust expires in 50 years with a one-time option to renew for another 50 years. That's 100 years and, as you article goes on to illustrate, this particular law has only been in effect for a decade or so and laws change. Most likely this one will, too, and most likely in a way that will expand the renewal and/or allow for new beneficiaries to begin a cycle of their own instead of being hindered by the previous owner's claim, but for the time being the foreign born owner effectively has life-long ownership of the property to do with what s/he will.
From what you said about "sleight of hand" it seems like you only read the headline - Purchasing Beachfront Property in Mexico: How Americans Circumvent Mexico's Constitutional Prohibition - and didn't bother to read the article.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 7:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 97 of 115 (414705)
08-05-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2007 5:55 PM


98%???
Bridges are generally built over water, not dry land, which 98% of the border consists of.
Have you checked an atlas lately? Or do you just enjoy being wrong?
1. They already have the option to come here legally.
Obviously they aren't filling the jobs for immigrants with the legal applicants, or there wouldn't be such an easy market for illegals to find work.
The "demand" for what? Supply and demand is supposed to be reciprocal, not one sided. What do we gain by letting mass immigrants flow through the border?
Workers and consumers.
We would, except that getting her to breath of her own volition, let alone actually work, is like pulling teeth.
I really don't see any connection between your sister in law and the immigration problem. None. I also don't see any connection between US citizens not working by their own volition and the immigration problem.
These are people that want to work, and are willing to put up with considerable hardship to do so. Seems to me they should be welcome additions.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 5:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 98 of 115 (414742)
08-06-2007 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
08-05-2007 1:40 PM


Re: Reality versus talking points
I repeat: any immigration policy that discriminates between individuals violates these American concepts of equality and rights, most especially the right to the pursuit of happiness.
sorry for the nitpick, but it's a real and serious problem.
we don't have a right to any pursuit of happiness. it's a statement in the declaration of independence which is not a government document and has nothing to do with the constitution or any guarantee of rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2007 1:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2007 7:42 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 99 of 115 (414754)
08-06-2007 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Reality versus talking points
NJ writes:
Its a figure of speech, Ang. Just like saying Bush is hiking up gas prices. Do I mean that to mean that he is single-handedly doing so? Of course not. Do I mean that Bill Clinton single-handedly was out along the Tijuana border building a wall by himself in the middle of desert? Obviously not.
Obviously you missed the point, despite any 'red hot' desire to make the president the emperor on the part of so-called conservatives, there is always Congress. All bills spending money must originate in the House of Representatives, therefore any wall had to be funded by their consent.
Bridges are generally built over water, not dry land, which 98% of the border consists of. Secondly, there has been talk about building a wall, but no resolution has been passed or denied at this point.
Please allow me to elaborate upon what RAZD has pointed out, perhaps too subtly. On the southern border of the US there is a river called the Rio Grande that goes from one end of Texas to the other, from El Paso to Brownsville. This river is approximately half the border between the US and Mexico. On the other side of the US there are things called the 'great lakes' that make up around a third of the northern border of the lower 48 states with Canada. Should we continue this discussion of geography? Personally, I would find it embarrassing, but then again I'm not you.
The "demand" for what? Supply and demand is supposed to be reciprocal, not one sided. What do we gain by letting mass immigrants flow through the border?
In the words of the most illustrious Carlos Mencia "Duh Duh Duh." When the so called 'minutemen' reduced the number of illegal immigrants to Arizona, half the produce rotted in the field. But I guess that some adherents of the idea of Christian charity think it best to feed the insects and let the people with an inappropriate melanin content go hungry.
Ah, right... because produce magically flew off the trees and into the stores before, right?
You said it, I didn't. Evidently this is your position, it is not mine.
The problem is that certain American farmers and corporations are hiring illegal aliens and paying them disparaging wages. They can't get away with that for legal citizens. These bastards pit the immigrant against himself. They threaten them with the fear of deportation if they complain about their wage.
In essence, they're slaves. American authorities should be doing more to put a stop to it. With this much, I'm sure we are in agreement.
Yes, my suggestion is to create a method by which illegal immigrants can be legalized, so that the work gets done and no one is taken advantage of. Are you familiar with the works and words of Cesar Chavez? If not, you should be. He is a lot closer to the Christian ideal as preached by Jesus as opposed to the hate speech of Buchanan, Hannity or O'Reilly.
So, its not as if America has a shortage of willing able field workers because they're snooty. But if you want to truly change that perception, by all means go till the ground.
First off, I call bullshit. There are $20+ per hour jobs right here right now. Why would any citizen work for minimum wage in backbreaking labor? Taking 'our jobs'
Second, you are the one arguing that illegal immigrants can somehow be stopped by a combination of a modern 'iron curtain' and a militarization of the border while I am arguing that the US should use some of that money wasted on Cheney and Halliburton to improve the conditions of a directly bordering nation.
The burden is upon you, not me, to pick the fruit as you are the one who apparently despises illegal immigrants. Also I figure you would be better at it having already shown you know how to palm the pea
Killing on sight is against the law. So, no, I'm not advocating that.
Thank God
Please stifle your activism for a more applicable thread. Or by the very least, don't simply talk about leaving because you're so disenchanted with the state of affairs-- just leave and be done with it. That way all parties win.
Indeed, the old 'America, love it or leave it" argument. Let me make this simple enough for all to understand, including you. I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America and as a veteran and patriot I will defend it against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Are you in disagreement with me?
Excuse me, I have to take a hundred breaths

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 5:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-07-2007 5:19 PM anglagard has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 100 of 115 (414760)
08-06-2007 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hyroglyphx
08-05-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Reality versus talking points
OK, I took my hundred breaths.
So, NJ, what is your solution to illegal immigration?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-05-2007 5:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 101 of 115 (414767)
08-06-2007 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by macaroniandcheese
08-06-2007 12:06 AM


Re: Reality versus talking points
we don't have a right to any pursuit of happiness. it's a statement in the declaration of independence which is not a government document and has nothing to do with the constitution or any guarantee of rights.
You are free to believe that. Btw, did you read the OP?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-06-2007 12:06 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-06-2007 10:23 AM RAZD has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 115 (414769)
08-06-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
08-05-2007 1:40 PM


Re: Reality versus talking points
Generous in comparison IS NOT THE QUESTION
REPEAT: The question is about the morality of US policy with regard to immigration as a whole. Can you tell me why it is moral and just to treat 'Person A' different from 'Person B' when the only difference is an accident of birth?
RAZD, ciivilians of this nation have things afforded to them, because they are citizens, that non-citizens are not available to, just like you going to Nigeria, or Ukraine, or Wales, etc, wouldn't be available to you for the same reason. That doesn't mean that human decency doesn't exist.
I'm not sure why you think your argument is supposed to be extrapolated in terms that everyone should be able to do absolutely everything their heart contents.
never forget to bring up terrorism to justify closing the mexican border when that was not the way they got here.
RAZD, I know you pine over the destruction of the US and all and work feverishly to make that happen, but its a credible scenario. If malnourished immigrants can make it in and out of the country at their whim, something tells me that a group of terrorists seeking to subvert the US can to as well.
Moreover, you never answered my question. Do you want a completely free border?
Immigration has nothing to do with terrorism.
But an open border does.
We are already paying for them. It's a matter of dignity. Because a moral society takes care of it's own.
Do you want to pay for people whether they work or not, yes or no?
any immigration policy that discriminates between individuals violates these American concepts of equality and rights, most especially the right to the pursuit of happiness.
RAZD, what aren't you understanding? Anyone is free to come to the US to become a resident. The stipulation is that you be naturalized. That requires one to go through the legal channels to do so.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -14th Amendment
That means citizens have certain privileges that do not extend to non-residents. If someone wants to become a citizen, they can do so by going through the proper channels. So, honestly, what is the problem?
The US was built on immigration without restrictions.
A good question is how does the United States strike a balance between security and freedom? How do we protect society without losing civil liberties?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2007 1:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2007 11:32 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2007 10:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 103 of 115 (414776)
08-06-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by RAZD
08-06-2007 7:42 AM


Re: Reality versus talking points
naturally. i decided to correct you here.
You are free to believe that.
there were no united states when that document was written. it was not approved by congress nor ratified by the states. it's full of values and ideals, sure, but it is sentiment and not a government document and has no power as a binding legal contract.
it's not a belief, it's simple, solid governmental fact. likewise, the statue of liberty holds a poem. also not a binding document. while we may perhaps deserve some right to happiness, it is not guaranteed us.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2007 7:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2007 10:43 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 115 (414778)
08-06-2007 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by macaroniandcheese
08-06-2007 10:23 AM


Re: Reality versus talking points
I suggest you read the Declaration again ... it doesn't need to be included in the constitution or laws of government -- it lays out the rights of people that cannot be taken away by government(s) ... that are inalienable ... and that when governments do try to take them away (as the current administration is doing), it says this is justification to form a new government.
Naturally I decided to correct you here.
... the statue of liberty holds a poem. also not a binding document.
And I didn't say they were binding documents.
But together these form part of the cultural heritage of what it is to be American -- they espouse American ideals that are a fundamental element of our cultural heritage, our national "persona".
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-06-2007 10:23 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-06-2007 10:48 AM RAZD has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 105 of 115 (414780)
08-06-2007 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
08-06-2007 10:43 AM


Re: Reality versus talking points
it lays out the rights of people that cannot be taken away by government(s)
good luck with that in court.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 08-06-2007 10:43 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024