NationStates Jolt Archive

A thought came to my mind recently while watching something on illegal immigrants.

Why don't we allow the illegal immigrants who have been here for, say, ten years (?) to automatically become citizens. They've been here so long, I really don't think they should sent back to wherever they came from. But for everyone who has been here less than five years, they should get their asses back to wherever they came from. Most of the "Five Years", anyways, are the ones you see being hippocritical by holding up a sign that says "I am an American!" while waving a flag of another country (trying to be PC here...) in the other hand. I'm pretty sure almost all of us on here want them out. Those who have been here for five to ten years should be allowed to start the process of becoming a citizen.

What do you think?

They should all be given access to near-immediate citizenship.

All of them.

They should all be given access to near-immediate citizenship.

All of them.

Even those who just got in here last week? Even those who raise flags of another country on a California Government Post Office?

Even those who just got in here last week?

Yes. No one is illegal.

Even those who raise flags of another country on a California Government Post Office?

Absolutely. Let them value their culture as they see fit, as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

Yes. No one is illegal.



Absolutely. Let them value their culture as they see fit, as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

Yes, they are. They came here without getting a green card. That is a criminal offense. Criminal offenses are ILLEGAL. Therefore, they are criminals.

Let them value their culture by flooding the "Melting Pot" with one people? I myself am all for the Melting Pot, but not when it tastes of only one thing.

Even those who just got in here last week?

even those who haven't yet crossed the border.
everyone

Even those who just got in here last week? Even those who raise flags of another country on a California Government Post Office?

Who cares?

I don't think we should give them immediate citizenship. But make it free, easy, and fast to attain citizenship. If that doesn't work, then annex mexico, and raise taxes on them to make it to where they are paid for.

Yes, they are. They came here without getting a green card. That is a criminal offense. Criminal offenses are ILLEGAL. Therefore, they are criminals.

They have broken an unjust, immoral law that the state has no right to enforce.

Freedom of movement is a human right.

Let them value their culture by flooding the "Melting Pot" with one people? I myself am all for the Melting Pot, but not when it tastes of only one thing.

Are they stopping you from participating in your cultural activities? No? Then stop complaining.

I managed to syphon over £100,000 from Mr Jack Smith's personal bank account 12 years ago. But it was 12 years ago so the money is effectively mine now, so really I shouldnt be prosecuted for it now should I?

Absolutely absurd. If you break the law, you are punished.

Who cares?

People :P

I myself am all for the Melting Pot, but not when it tastes of only one thing.

You don't say? What is the ratio of hispanic people in the US, to, say, white people?

People :P

Silly people! :p

They have broken an unjust, immoral law that the state has no right to enforce.

Freedom of movement is a human right.


Freedom of movement is a right observed within states, not between them.

And in either case you are mistaken, since the government does make provisions for people to enter the state legally so the right is protected, but for practical reasons, that right cannot be extended to every single person, so it must be prioritised or somehow delt with in another fashion

If you break the law, you are punished.

The "law" in this case is a violation of human rights; it unjustly privileges certain people based on arbitrary standards (place of birth) and it prevents people, harming no one, from seeking to improve their living standards.

As such, it is an illegitimate law, it is immoral to enforce it, and it is perfectly acceptable to break it.

Freedom of movement is a right observed within states, not between them.

States are artificial inventions; they have nothing to do with human rights.

And in either case you are mistaken, since the government does make provisions for people to enter the state legally so the right is protected, but for practical reasons, that right cannot be extended to every single person, so it must be prioritised or somehow delt with in another fashion

But it can be extended far more broadly than it currently is. After all, it is not as if current "illegal" immigrants are destroying the country.

The "law" in this case is a violation of human rights; it unjustly privileges certain people based on arbitrary standards (place of birth) and it prevents people, harming no one, from seeking to improve their living standards.

As such, it is an illegitimate law, it is immoral to enforce it, and it is perfectly acceptable to break it.

Not true.

The state has set up a series of methods by which it is possible for people to legally enter the country, so their human rights are provided for. See my above post.

The state has set up a series of methods by which it is possible for people to legally enter the country, so their human rights are provided for.

That is meaningless.

It is akin to saying, "it's true you can't criticize the government, but because we don't stop you from praising your leaders, we aren't violating the right of free speech."

States are artificial inventions; they have nothing to do with human rights.


Only states have the power to protect human rights. The state therefore is the means by which you go through to exercise your human rights. Human rights cannot as yet be protected by anything else.


But it can be extended far more broadly than it currently is. After all, it is not as if current "illegal" immigrants are destroying the country.

The right is provided for, it is up to the people who want to come to the country to use that method.

Are they stopping you from participating in your cultural activities? No? Then stop complaining.

They aren't? Then why is it when I try to express my ancestral Finnish heritage, I'm always figuratively "beat up on" for being different? Yet whenever these people do, they are free to do it all they want?

Why should those coming here illegally be rewarded? They don't pay taxes, and use our health care and they should be made citizens? It isn't fair for those who DO come here legally. Not to mention that these illegals could be criminals from their native country. We don't know.

You don't say? What is the ratio of hispanic people in the US, to, say, white people?

I do think overall Whites are a minority right, or close to it. Well compared to all the other minority groups...So in reality this post has no real point other than +1

That is meaningless.

It is akin to saying, "it's true you can't criticize the government, but because we don't stop you from praising your leaders, we aren't violating the right of free speech."

Completely diffrent

Freedom of movement is provided for by the state, but for practical reasons, as I'm sure you can apreciate, it is regulated. Regulation does not equal restriction. For example, the UK has freedom of speech laws, but that does not mean that certian regulations do not exist. Currently many Muslim protesters and far right activists are being prosecuted for carrying banners with slogens intended to encite vilonece ("Behead those who mock Islam", "Blood of the impure run free" etc). In freedom there is always a path not taken. You are free to enter this country, but to do so you must go through an offical channel, the simple reason being that there is a practical limit to how many people can enter a country.

Only states have the power to protect human rights. The state therefore is the means by which you go through to exercise your human rights. Human rights cannot as yet be protected by anything else.

You missed my point - the distinction between "within states" and "between states" is irrelevant, because human rights need not recognize artificial statist boundaries.

The right is provided for, it is up to the people who want to come to the country to use that method.

The "method" is highly restrictive, and thus illegitimate.

Why should those coming here illegally be rewarded? They don't pay taxes, and use our health care and they should be made citizens? It isn't fair for those who DO come here legally. Not to mention that these illegals could be criminals from their native country. We don't know.

1) Some of our own citizens don't pay taxes. Ask Wilgrove
2) what healthcare? The one you have to pay for yourself? quit crying, they have to pay for it, not I
3)Why not? Our own citizens are no better
4) COuld be...They also could be the next einstein, or the person that saves your life. Amazing what the "could be"

You are free to enter this country, but to do so you must go through an offical channel, the simple reason being that there is a practical limit to how many people can enter a country.

A "practical limit" we are quite far from exceeding (if it even exists.)

Why should those coming here illegally be rewarded? They don't pay taxes...

aside from the fact that they actually do, citizenship would actually solve this alleged problem way better than any of the dumb anti-immigrant proposals people push.

You missed my point - the distinction between "within states" and "between states" is irrelevant, because human rights need not recognize artificial statist boundaries.



The "method" is highly restrictive, and thus illegitimate.

Since when did you become an Anarchist, Soh?

They aren't? Then why is it when I try to express my ancestral Finnish heritage, I'm always figuratively "beat up on" for being different?

That's wrong of them. It is also not significant enough to warrant violating freedom of movement.

Yet whenever these people do, they are free to do it all they want?

That's not what I said.

aside from the fact that they actually do, citizenship would actually solve this alleged problem way better than any of the dumb anti-immigrant proposals people push.

I suppose I could be mistaken but I remember reading that illegals often just get paid "under the table" therefore don't give any taxes to the gov. Regardless, I don't feel comfortable with some policy where the illegal just has to get on U.S. soil and is basically an instant citizen. We need more controls then that.

Since when did you become an Anarchist, Soh?

Hmm... maybe December 2005? Sometime around then, anyway.

I don't recall exactly. It came with the realization that the sort of state socialism I was advocating was so libertarian that it was practically indistinguishable from anarchism.

You missed my point - the distinction between "within states" and "between states" is irrelevant, because human rights need not recognize artificial statist boundaries.

And you missed my point. States are the providers and defenders of human rights. Ergo the methods by which they defend them and advance them must be adhered to.


The "method" is highly restrictive, and thus illegitimate.

The method should be restricitive only for practical and reasonable reasons. In the case of the UK for instance, it is restricitive because of the high population density that is already evident in the UK.

It has a right to be restrictive, but only for genuine reasons.

And you missed my point. States are the providers and defenders of human rights. Ergo the methods by which they defend them and advance them must be adhered to.

And the methods by which they do neither can be ignored.

The method should be restricitive only for practical and reasonable reasons. In the case of the UK for instance, it is restricitive because of the high population density that is already evident in the UK.

Why is that a legitimate basis?

4) COuld be...They also could be the next einstein, or the person that saves your life. Amazing what the "could be"

They "could be" anything, which is why some kind of check needs to be done into their backround. You wouldn't let strangers come into your house without knowing who the hell they are would you?

They "could be" anything, which is why some kind of check needs to be done into their backround. You wouldn't let strangers come into your house without knowing who the hell they are would you?

I have before. Good thing they were only mormons.

A thought came to my mind recently while watching something on illegal immigrants.

Why don't we allow the illegal immigrants who have been here for, say, ten years (?) to automatically become citizens. They've been here so long, I really don't think they should sent back to wherever they came from. But for everyone who has been here less than five years, they should get their asses back to wherever they came from. Most of the "Five Years", anyways, are the ones you see being hippocritical by holding up a sign that says "I am an American!" while waving a flag of another country (trying to be PC here...) in the other hand. I'm pretty sure almost all of us on here want them out. Those who have been here for five to ten years should be allowed to start the process of becoming a citizen.

What do you think?

An entirely reasonable suggestion. Although you'd have to completely restructure the immigration services because of the large numbers of people you'd have to give citizenship status to.

And the methods by which they do neither can be ignored.

Freedom of movement is provided for by the government. It should only be restricted for legiamate reasons. Your logic suggests that prison is illegitmate because it restricts freedom. There are grounds for restrictions of human rights. One of them is bypassing the provision system of them.


Why is that a legitimate basis?

For the same reason that a very full bus doesnt let people on. There isnt any more room. There are over 60 million people in the UK, it does not have the space & resoruces to cater for a much higher population, certianly one artifically generated.

Freedom of movement is provided for by the government. It should only be restricted for legiamate reasons. Your logic suggests that prison is illegitmate because it restricts freedom. There are grounds for restrictions of human rights. One of them is bypassing the provision system of them.



For the same reason that a very full bus doesnt let people on. There isnt any more room. There are over 60 million people in the UK, it does not have the space & resoruces to cater for a much higher population, certianly one artifically generated.

The US only has 300 million and could easily fit another billion or two. The west isn't populated at all. Besides, most immigrants end up returning home anyway when there are no barriers to entry/exit. Something around 90% of the original Italian wave in the 1800's returned home.

Freedom of movement is provided for by the government.

It is illegitimately restricted by the government.

It should only be restricted for legiamate reasons.

Indeed.

Your logic suggests that prison is illegitmate because it restricts freedom.

No - merely imprisonment for illegitimate reasons.

Socrates should have fled.

There are grounds for restrictions of human rights. One of them is bypassing the provision system of them.

The only ground is the violation of another's human rights.

For the same reason that a very full bus doesnt let people on. There isnt any more room.

If that were true, then the immigrants wouldn't come. Problem solved.

Freedom of movement is provided for by the government.

no it isn't

They aren't? Then why is it when I try to express my ancestral Finnish heritage, I'm always figuratively "beat up on" for being different? Yet whenever these people do, they are free to do it all they want?

Maybe people just don't like you?

a question for the restrictionists - why is freedom of movement within a country a good thing? why shouldn't we have internal checkpoints and passports?

They "could be" anything, which is why some kind of check needs to be done into their backround. You wouldn't let strangers come into your house without knowing who the hell they are would you?

Because, of course, someone being in the same country as you is akin to being in your home.

I've thought about it for a while, but while in theory I can think of a few circumstances where restraining freedom of movement could be justified, I can't think of any reasonably likely, practical circumstances where that would be the case.

The only justification seems to be privileging those already there over those who want to come, which is a violation of moral equality and thus illegitimate.

If conditions are so awful that the country simply can't handle any more immigrants, no immigrants will come - who wants to immigrate to an awful country?

It is illegitimately restricted by the government.


Then you will have to demonstrate which grounds for restricition are illigitmate, because like it or not there are legitmate grounds.

Let me demonstrate to you what I am trying to get across

Everyone is entitled to their basic needs being met (IE food, fuel, shelter, water, clothes etc). But this does not then mean that companies do not have the right to charge you for these services. What it does mean is that if they charge and you cannot afford it, provision should be made for you to be able to afford them. That provision comes in many forms. That of an education to get a job by which you can get the money to buy the things you need, social securtity benefit for if you are out of work for one reason or another so you can afford the basic needs. But the fact is that just becasue you are entitled to these things, does not then mean you can steel to get them if for one reason or another you do not have the money. There are provisions for you to be able to get the money you need (or rather there should be) and thus for you to steel is wrong.

I managed to syphon over £100,000 from Mr Jack Smith's personal bank account 12 years ago. But it was 12 years ago so the money is effectively mine now, so really I shouldnt be prosecuted for it now should I?

Absolutely absurd. If you break the law, you are punished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

Then you will have to demonstrate which grounds for restricition are illigitmate, because like it or not there are legitmate grounds.

What legitimate grounds?

Let me demonstrate to you what I am trying to get across

Everyone is entitled to their basic needs being met (IE food, fuel, shelter, water, clothes etc). But this does not then mean that companies do not have the right to charge you for these services. What it does mean is that if they charge and you cannot afford it, provision should be made for you to be able to afford them. That provision comes in many forms. That of an education to get a job by which you can get the money to buy the things you need, social securtity benefit for if you are out of work for one reason or another so you can afford the basic needs. But the fact is that just becasue you are entitled to these things, does not then mean you can steel to get them if for one reason or another you do not have the money. There are provisions for you to be able to get the money you need (or rather there should be) and thus for you to steel is wrong.

If I take goods from a company, I am harming the owners of the company, and thus the workers and other consumers.

If I cross into another country, who am I harming?

Because, of course, someone being in the same country as you is akin to being in your home.

Because, of course, the U.S. is the home for the residents here and letting strangers in who you know nothing about into your home is dangerous and stupid. Anyone coming in needs to be checked out, and illegals are not checked. It is just common sense to know who you are letting in to your country.

a question for the restrictionists - why is freedom of movement within a country a good thing? why shouldn't we have internal checkpoints and passports?

You misunderstand.

Freedom of movement is a good thing, and in an ideal world, there would be complete freedom of movement throught the whole world. However this is not an ideal world, as there is no universal system for the provision of human rights. States are the protectors and advancers of human rights and thus the systems that they use to provide and advance them should be used, not abused or bypassed.

But on a more specific note, in the case of the USA and air travel, it would be prudent for there to be a system of passport that you would need to travel between states. The shear size of the US means that that kind of infomation is nessecary as otherwise potential terrorism involving aircraft cannot be monitered when it comes to domestic flights.

and thus for you to steel is wrong.

Stealing is wrong because it harms others, not because there's other ways to get money.

Because, of course, the U.S. is the home for the residents here and letting strangers in who you know nothing about into your home is dangerous and stupid. Anyone coming in needs to be checked out, and illegals are not checked. It is just common sense to know who you are letting in to your country.

*shrug* Hell if I care, but you can't compare someone being in your country to being in your house.

You misunderstand.

Freedom of movement is a good thing, and in an ideal world, there would be complete freedom of movement throught the whole world. However this is not an ideal world, as there is no universal system for the provision of human rights. States are the protectors and advancers of human rights and thus the systems that they use to provide and advance them should be used, not abused or bypassed.

If they are unnecessarily restrictive, why should they be used?

If I take goods from a company, I am harming the owners of the company, and thus the workers and other consumers.

If I cross into another country, who am I harming?

You are illegitmately draining on services provided by the state for its citizens. The social security system of the UK cannot provide for every single person in the world, nor should it have to. You can see the practical problems of this.

You are illegitmately draining on services provided by the state for its citizens. The social security system of the UK cannot provide for every single person in the world, nor should it have to. You can see the practical problems of this.
How did illegal immigrants get social security?

You are illegitmately draining on services provided by the state for its citizens. The social security system of the UK cannot provide for every single person in the world, nor should it have to. You can see the practical problems of this.

Because, of course, immigrants don't work, and don't contribute to the economy.

Because, of course, immigrants don't work, and don't contribute to the economy.

In many cases they dont. They beg. And those who do work are in the vast majority of cases paid cash in hand and are not contributing anything in tax. Also they are paid below the minimum wage, because they will work for it, forcing better qualified people out of a job

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

If it was discoverd that I did it 12 years ago, not if I did it 12 years ago and was then tried and sentenced.

If it was discoverd that I did it 12 years ago, not if I did it 12 years ago and was then tried and sentenced.

You miss the point. For some crimes, if it's been long enough, you can't be charged. I don't know what your statment is trying to say.

In many cases they dont. They beg. And those who do work are in the vast majority of cases paid cash in hand and are not contributing anything in tax. Also they are paid below the minimum wage, because they will work for it, forcing better qualified people out of a job

Then give them citizenship - that would solve both problems.

In many cases they dont. They beg. And those who do work are in the vast majority of cases paid cash in hand and are not contributing anything in tax. Also they are paid below the minimum wage, because they will work for it, forcing better qualified people out of a job

"forcing better qualified people out of a job"

What, forcing the high school graduate out of a job at Burger King?

*shrug* Hell if I care, but you can't compare someone being in your country to being in your house.

I certainly can. Only this house is not just you and yours but all people of the U.S. living in the house of America. And you don't want potential dangerous people coming into this house. Which is why immigration officials must check out those who want to immigrate to our country. If we become slack, it will not have good results. We have enough people who are actually citizens pissing on our carpet, we don't need illegals to do it as well.

Yes. No one is illegal.

I agree to a point, and although I abhor using law in this fashion, I think it would be convenient to keep something on the books that would allow us to boot anyone who was coming here specifically to commit crimes or leech off the social welfare or generally create more trouble than they were creating in added value to offset.

Absolutely. Let them value their culture as they see fit, as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

Here we diverge. It's great that people are from all different cultures and places, but this is America, not Mexico, not India, not someplace else. I want people to add their cultural influence to the country and share their ponit of view and other cool shit with us (especially their food! Yummay!), but they should value their culture as Americans, not try and create a little piece of the country they left behind to come here. If that's the case, go back to where you obviously love to be. If you're so loyal to Mexico and your Mexican heritage that you feel the need to fly a Mexican flag, go to Mexico where they do that. The flag you fly represents your allegiance and signifies possession of the land (or ship) by the country whose flag is flying over it. If you're going to wave a flag, wave the flag that belongs flying over the land you're living on.

I certainly can. Only this house is not just you and yours but all people of the U.S. living in the house of America. And you don't want potential dangerous people coming into this house. Which is why immigration officials must check out those who want to immigrate to our country. If we become slack, it will not have good results. We have enough people who are actually citizens pissing on our carpet, we don't need illegals to do it as well.

Unless you own a 3.7 million square mile house, that doesn't make any sense. There's a reason you don't let strangers in. Because there an immediate danger. Why are they immediate? Because they're right there, within the confined space of your house. Someone coming into the country could be 2000 milles away from me. Assuming they pose a danger to me, it is not the same as the danger letting a stanger into your house does.

Then give them citizenship - that would solve both problems.

You cannot simply give anyone who asks for it citizenship. It is far more complex than that. The social security system may be struggling under the weight of the current population already. The tax system doesnt allow for a massive influx of people below the non-taxed bracket to be claiming social security off a smaller percentage of people who are paying tax. That is what would happen if your idea was put into place. The immigrants would, for the most part, be earning below where the minimum ammount afforded for by tax is planted, yet they would still be claiming benefit. The system needs to remain for the benefit of those people. You can clearly see the practical need for restricition. In an ideal world, your system would be in place, but this is NOT an ideal world. And it will not be made so by inconsistantly applying your ideas. If your ideas are to work, they need to be applied universally, and that means a world government

But on a more specific note, in the case of the USA and air travel, it would be prudent for there to be a system of passport that you would need to travel between states.

whoa, somebody that doesn't support even internal freedom of movement. crazy.

Unless you own a 3.7 million square mile house, that doesn't make any sense. There's a reason you don't let strangers in. Because there an immediate danger. Why are they immediate? Because they're right there, within the confined space of your house. Someone coming into the country could be 2000 milles away from me. Assuming they pose a danger to me, it is not the same as the danger letting a stanger into your house does.

It doesn't really matter how big your house is. Letting dangerous people in doesn't exactly make me feel comforted knowing there is a lot of room for the individual to go. Instead of me being personally affected, someone else in the America House (don't laugh please :) ) will be hurt instead. It does not exactly make me feel better.

Socrates should have fled.

Oh, ouch! Did you read Crito? It explains perfectly why he didn't.

It doesn't really matter how big your house is. Letting dangerous people in doesn't exactly make me feel comforted knowing there is a lot of room for the individual to go. Instead of me being personally affected, someone else in the America House (don't laugh please :) ) will be hurt instead. It does not exactly make me feel better.

Well, hell, what about the World House? "ZOMG a stranger moved from Germany to France! THEY GONNA KILL ME CUZ THEY IS CLOSER NOW" Not that they have any idea where you are or even know you exist. Jeez, if you're so concerned about everyone in the "house" How are you dealing with the recent deaths of about a dozen people?

whoa, somebody that doesn't support even internal freedom of movement. crazy.

Only to a point. It is dangerous to just allow anyone onto any passanger aircraft, as september 11th demonstrated.

Oh, ouch! Did you read Crito? It explains perfectly why he didn't.

his reasoning there is crap

his reasoning there is crap

I disagree. It makes perfect sense that, if he really wanted to leave and hated the laws of the state he was living in, he had plenty of opportunity in 70 years to go somewhere else. The idea that you can't just select the laws you like to follow and disregard the rest is kind of important to the maintenance of the state.

Well, hell, what about the World House? "ZOMG a stranger moved from Germany to France! THEY GONNA KILL ME CUZ THEY IS CLOSER NOW" Not that they have any idea where you are or even know you exist. Jeez, if you're so concerned about everyone in the "house" How are you dealing with the recent deaths of about a dozen people?

Look, the point is that if we are going to allow immigrants to come here they have to be investigated to make sure they aren't criminals. If they come in illegally then they are not investigated. That shouldn't happen.

Why pick 10 years? How does an illegal immigrant prove that they have been in the country 10 years?

Why not pick 525 years? Chuck out all those immigrants who can't trace their family in America back to, say, 1481.

Chuck out all those people who celebrate St Paticks day, claiming to be Americans but waving some other country's flag in their other hand.

Look, the point is that if we are going to allow immigrants to come here they have to be investigated to make sure they aren't criminals.

and if we are going to allow people from indiana to travel to illinois we have to investigate them to make sure they aren't criminals either. imagine how fucked up everything would be if we didn't do that. oh, wait...