NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051700253.html?hpid=topnews

This pisses me off than anything else. These people are here illegally and now we are going to reward them by making them citizens? That is nuts! Just plain nuts. They all should be rounded up and deported with armed guards on the borders to stop them from crossing again.

The only bright spot in all of this is:

would also bolster border patrols and enhanced enforcement of rules for hiring aliens

This is an abominition to America and must be fought.

maybe after they are "legal" we can get some taxes out of them. ;)

Dunno, I kinda like this part:

The new proposal would augment that system with a merit-based program that would award points based on education levels, work experience and English proficiency, as well as family ties.

Not so much the essentially giving the current illegal immigrant population amnesty though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051700253.html?hpid=topnews

This pisses me off than anything else. These people are here illegally and now we are going to reward them by making them citizens? That is nuts! Just plain nuts. They all should be rounded up and deported with armed guards on the borders to stop them from crossing again.

The only bright spot in all of this is:



This is an abominition to America and must be fought.

Yes, damn those evil illegal immigrants! It's not as if over half of them actually emigrated legally and then just overstayed their visas for one reason or another, usually an inability to afford going back home! Damn allowing new immigrants which is the foundation of America. Damn allowing those evil disgusting Hispanics! :rolleyes:

Grow up and quit being such a racist ass, Corny.

Yes, damn those evil illegal immigrants! It's not as if over half of them actually emigrated legally and then just overstayed their visas for one reason or another, usually an inability to afford going back home! Damn allowing new immigrants which is the foundation of America. Damn allowing those evil disgusting Hispanics! :rolleyes:

Grow up and quit being such a racist ass, Corny.

So wanting to stop illegal immigration makes me a racist? How the hell does that compute? And overstaying visas makes one a criminal. Now you want to support lawbreakers. Luckily I do not support law breakers and want them punished. This does not do that.

So wanting to stop illegal immigration makes me a racist? How the hell does that compute?
Hey, I want to stop illegal immigration too, but they way you're going about it, you sound like a racist to me. You're declaring them an abomination to America, saying things like they should all be rounded up and deported, without even bothering to examine why they're here in the first place.

And overstaying visas makes one a criminal. Now you want to support lawbreakers. Luckily I do not support law breakers and want them punished. This does not do that.
I support law breakers when the law is unjust, and in this case it is. Immigration laws make it far too hard for most potential immigrants to immigrate. They're fleeing a singular lack of jobs and any sort of way of life. Try examining their financial situations and getting to know some of them before you declare them all criminals who should be tossed out without a single thought.

But then you won't do that, just like you won't do anything else that's reasonable and makes sense.

Hey, I want to stop illegal immigration too, but they way you're going about it, you sound like a racist to me. You're declaring them an abomination to America, saying things like they should all be rounded up and deported, without even bothering to examine why they're here in the first place.

Overstaying your visa is a crime and when caught you are to be deported. That is what the law states and that is how it should be.

Now the government can take the next step and offer them affirmative action to make right the oppression they have endured due to the laws that deemed them "illegal" in the first place.

So wanting to stop illegal immigration makes me a racist? How the hell does that compute? And overstaying visas makes one a criminal. Now you want to support lawbreakers. Luckily I do not support law breakers and want them punished. This does not do that.

Being a part of the underground railroad also made one a criminal, so those who took part are also worthy of our disgust as well, correct?

EDIT: The law has no moral authority, and as such simply being a lawbreaker is not "wrong".

If you can provide evidence why the law enforces a true moral obligationin this case, I would be inclined to agree with you, but I'm guessing you can't, as I have never seen a compelling argument from that angle.

maybe after they are "legal" we can get some taxes out of them. ;)

GOOD IDEA!

Also we can take their first born children, and compact them into a food stuff, and sell it back to them...We could make millions!

Overstaying your visa is a crime and when caught you are to be deported. That is what the law states and that is how it should be.

Criticizing Stalin was a crime and when caught one was to be deported to Siberia. Or shot. That's what the law stated and that is how it should have been. Law is never wrong, ever!

Being a part of the underground railroad also made one a criminal, so those who took part are also worthy of our disgust as well, correct?

Well that was then, and this is now...You can't blame us now for something that will be considered immoral years from now...you silly goose :)

History is a bitch...

Good. Now this is a step in the right direction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051700253.html?hpid=topnews

This pisses me off than anything else. These people are here illegally and now we are going to reward them by making them citizens? That is nuts! Just plain nuts. They all should be rounded up and deported with armed guards on the borders to stop them from crossing again.

The only bright spot in all of this is:

This is an abominition to America and must be fought.

I'm sorry, Corny, but what did you ever do to deserve the right to live in the USA?

I'm sorry, Corny, but what did you ever do to deserve the right to live in the USA?

He begat himself here.

I'm sorry, Corny, but what did you ever do to deserve the right to live in the USA?

What has anyone of us done to deserve the right to live anywhere?

What has anyone of us done to deserve the right to live anywhere?

Nothing.

So what, then, gives us the right to decide who can and can't live somewhere?

Nothing.

So what, then, gives us the right to decide who can and can't live somewhere?

Because we were here first...after the Native Americans...

Because we were here first...after the Indians...

I assume you mean Native Americans, not Indians?

So the indians should decide who lives in the US?

Because we were here first...after the Native Americans...
Sloppy seconds?

Sloppy seconds?

I guess...its not as positive as "Advancing America For a Brighter Future"

Nothing.

So what, then, gives us the right to decide who can and can't live somewhere?

National boundaries and national laws.

I assume you mean Native Americans, not Indians?


I slipped :(

So the indians should decide who lives in the US?

We'll have to vote on it...

The native americans were here first and white europeans took it from them. And so is the history of every nation at some point or another. Please excuse me while I shed a tear.

To all who called "Corneliu" racist, please refrain from future ad hominem remarks as they don't win you arguements or debates as your claims have no substance and come off as your ignorance trying to bubble forth to speak it's mind

To all who cited past historical examples of travesties, on top of comparing apples to oranges, you are simply begging the question. Getting shot for speaking your mind or helping a race of people escape slavery is supposed to somehow compare to sending a person back to their home country for entering my country illegally?

so it is law because it is just, and it is just because it is the law.

Meh, typical corny logic.

Sorry but Illegal immigration is against the law as is overstaying your visas. Should they be punished? Yes.

To all who cited past historical examples of travesties, on top of comparing apples to oranges, you are simply begging the question. Getting shot for speaking your mind or helping a race of people escape slavery is supposed to somehow compare to sending a person back to their home country for entering my country illegally?

You could not have missed the point by more.

You admit that these were travesties, so we can accept the moral reprehensibility of them as a given. Now, when we take this given and combine it with the fact that they were acts of law, we can establish that the law can be morally reprehensible.

If the law can be morally wrong, then we can also assume that people are not wrong simply on the basis of breaking the law.

Simply put, you cannot say that someone is committing a wrong because he or she is committing a crime.

National boundaries and national laws.

so it is law because it is just, and it is just because it is the law.

Meh, typical corny logic.

National boundaries and national laws.

C'mon....

Sorry but Illegal immigration is against the law as is overstaying your visas. Should they be punished? Yes.

The law is a positive issue, while should is a normative term, you are committing a moralistic fallacy to go along with the prior begging the question.

National boundaries and national laws.

No, that doesn't answer my question.

The question you've answered is "So what, then, are the things we use to decide who lives where?"

Yes, national boundaries and national are what we use to decide who lives where. Congratulations, you've answered a question nobody asked.

Now, the question I asked was "So what, then, gives us the right to decide who can and can't live somewhere?"

Different, I'm sure you can see. And not even subtly so.

You could not have missed the point by more.

You admit that these were travesties, so we can accept the moral reprehensibility of them as a given. Now, when we take this given and combine it with the fact that they were acts of law, we can establish that the law can be morally reprehensible.

If the law can be morally wrong, then we can also assume that people are not wrong simply on the basis of breaking the law.

Simply put, you cannot say that someone is committing a wrong because he or she is committing a crime.

I'll be the first to admit that laws are not always right. That's why I am an ardent supporter of "Jury Nulification". I also agree that disobeying a law that is wrong, doesn't make you evil; if anything it's an act of civil disobedience. Rosa Parks and MLK come to mind.

However, you have failed to raise a valid case for citing immigration law as being morally wrong. The cons of unchecked immigration and allowing people to get away with breaking the law far outweigh any benefits of the same lot. If the penalty for being found out as an illegal was death/and or torture, I would agree with you all 100% and then some as that punishment is overkill, but it is not. The price you pay is deportation.

A better solution would be to help, not control or demand, but help these countries so that people don't feel such a desperate need to come to America illegally. Helping the economic situations in the 3rd world would be a big start. And no not the way the CIA tried to do it in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Another way would be to make it easier to come to America in the first place. Although now we get to the point of what an acceptable and healthy level of immigration is. Of course that would derail the point of this thread so I will spare all my opinion.

GOOD IDEA!

Also we can take their first born children, and compact them into a food stuff, and sell it back to them...We could make millions!

85% of my illegal immigration problem is solved once they start paying taxes.....I don't need first born compacted cheese food.....I just need the basic infrastructure of my state not to fall apart.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051700253.html?hpid=topnews

This pisses me off than anything else. These people are here illegally and now we are going to reward them by making them citizens? That is nuts! Just plain nuts. They all should be rounded up and deported with armed guards on the borders to stop them from crossing again.

The only bright spot in all of this is:



This is an abominition to America and must be fought.

Well, Juan has to feed 10 kids, and it might be nice if the police weren't on his case.

Well, Juan has to feed 10 kids, and it might be nice if the police weren't on his case.

Then it would be nice if he entered legally or did not overstay his visa and got another one.

Then it would be nice if he entered legally or did not overstay his visa and got another one.

Maybe Juan is from a poor slum in Mexico City and can't exactly get a passport or a visa as easily as Bob from a suburb of Boston can.

However, you have failed to raise a valid case for citing immigration law as being morally wrong. The cons of unchecked immigration and allowing people to get away with breaking the law far outweigh any benefits of the same lot. If the penalty for being found out as an illegal was death/and or torture, I would agree with you all 100% and then some as that punishment is overkill, but it is not. The price you pay is deportation.
Fine, I'll be happy to do so. The current system is set up in a way to make it next to impossible to actually immigrate to the US unless you have a family member in the US willing to sponsor you, you have a job willing to do the same, and you make a good deal of money. Sadly, most of the people currently living illegally in the US do not have family inside the US who can do so, do not have jobs willing to sponsor them, and were not making all that much money.

It's fine to say, "Well, they should just immigrate legally like everyone else (Insert a my family came through Ellis Island story here, even though immigration laws back then were radically different)". However, no one has actually answered my responding question of, "It takes about $3,000 (US) to get a visa and the wait is currently 6 to 8 years for it to come through, with nothing saying you're actually going to get one even after spending that time and money. So how is a farmer making about $20 a day, if that, and needing to feed his family now supposed to be able to immigrate legally?"

It's a nice Hobson's choice/Catch-22.

It takes about $3,000 (US) to get a visa and the wait is currently 6 to 8 years for it to come through, with nothing saying you're actually going to get one even after spending that time and money.

(agrees)

My grandpa in India was waiting for 3 years, and then the government vetoed it. He didn't try again.

Maybe Juan is from a poor slum in Mexico City and can't exactly get a passport or a visa as easily as Bob from a suburb of Boston can.

Then maybe the government of Mexico should shape itself up and begin to assert itself instead of letting drug lords run the place.

However, you have failed to raise a valid case for citing immigration law as being morally wrong.

I have never needed to point out that the law is morally wrong, the only argument against illegal immigrants so far is that they are illegal. All I needed to do is show that "illegal" does not equal "wrong" and the argument is destroyed.

A better solution would be to help, not control or demand, but help these countries so that people don't feel such a desperate need to come to America illegally. Helping the economic situations in the 3rd world would be a big start. And no not the way the CIA tried to do it in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Another way would be to make it easier to come to America in the first place. Although now we get to the point of what an acceptable and healthy level of immigration is. Of course that would derail the point of this thread so I will spare all my opinion.

Or we cease to tell people that they cannot cross over rivers.

It's fine to say, "Well, they should just immigrate legally like everyone else (Insert a my family came through Ellis Island story here, even though immigration laws back then were radically different)". However, no one has actually answered my responding question of, "It takes about $3,000 (US) to get a visa and the wait is currently 6 to 8 years for it to come through, with nothing saying you're actually going to get one even after spending that time and money. So how is a farmer making about $20 a day, if that, and needing to feed his family now supposed to be able to immigrate legally?"


Some might say that that's the fault of the Mexican government and the conditions there rather than our immigration laws.

As much as our immigration system needed an overhaul, you can't deny that part of the blame lies with them as well.

Some might say that that's the fault of the Mexican government and the conditions there rather than our immigration laws.

As much as our immigration system needed an overhaul, you can't deny that part of the blame lies with them as well.

True, part of the blame lies with Mexico and other nations from which illegal immigrants come. They definitely need to improve their countries, economically and socially.

But that kind of improvement is not exactly easy. We like to think it is, what with America's 200+ years of being able to do so freely without any real worries, but it's just not that easy. You have to have resources, you have to have the kind of intellectual and educated capital required to utilize those resouces, you need industry, and so on and so forth. Most of these countries simply do not have what is needed.

Then maybe the government of Mexico should shape itself up and begin to assert itself instead of letting drug lords run the place.

Don't pass the buck.

Or we cease to tell people that they cannot cross over rivers.

actually, i've been thinking about putting checkpoints up at the bridges over the des plaines river. fuck you, park ridge!

So you let in workers to provide you with cheap labor, but you don't let them stay.

Nice.

Don't pass the buck.

Excuse me what? Look at Mexico. It explains the illegal immigration problem right there. Its a shithole.

actually, i've been thinking about putting checkpoints up at the bridges over the des plaines river. fuck you, park ridge!

If they want jobs, they should build their own factory!

So you let in workers to provide you with cheap labor, but you don't let them stay.

Nice.

No, they are making it illegal to not overpay American born workers, too.

Excuse me what? Look at Mexico. It explains the illegal immigration problem right there. Its a shithole.

As far as I know Mexico doesn't decide US law.

So you let in workers to provide you with cheap labor, but you don't let them stay.

Nice.

what, you don't like permanent underclasses with no political power?

As far as I know Mexico doesn't decide US law.

You are indeed right but it is Mexico's economic problems that is forcing the illegal immigration problem.

You are indeed right but it is Mexico's economic problems that is forcing the illegal immigration problem.

Mexico has no control over whether we have any illegal immigration.

No, they are making it illegal to not overpay American born workers, too.

How do you stop it?

How do you stop it?

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

How do you stop supply and demand from functioning with regard to the labor market?

Mexico has no control over whether we have any illegal immigration.

I see, Mexico has a corrupt government and severe economic issues including crippling poverty and rather than help them solve those problems we should just open our borders and say "come on in."

I'd say you're attacking a symptom instead of the root. Our immigration system, as I said before, needed an overhaul, but to say Mexico is completely blameless in the issue is absurd.

How do you stop supply and demand from functioning with regard to the labor market?

You don't, and because of this the protectionism we call immigration control is a de facto wage regulation.

What's that? The statue of liberty is throwing a party with Lady Justice, and all the mexicans are invited! I am so there!

Corny, seriously, taking in immigrants is maybe the single most American thing there is. Get with the program.

What's that? The statue of liberty is throwing a party with Lady Justice, and all the mexicans are invited! I am so there!

Corny, seriously, taking in immigrants is maybe the single most American thing there is. Get with the program.

What about eating apple pie with mother while watching the Red Sox pound the Yankees?...that was pretty American ;)

You don't, and because of this the protectionism we call immigration control is a de facto wage regulation.

Yes, downward.

Underclasses with no legal protection and limited organizational capacity are easier to exploit.

I see, Mexico has a corrupt government and severe economic issues including crippling poverty and rather than help them solve those problems we should just open our borders and say "come on in."

I'd say you're attacking a symptom instead of the root. Our immigration system, as I said before, needed an overhaul, but to say Mexico is completely blameless in the issue is absurd.

First off, never did I say that Mexico was blameless. This is simply not a discussion of Mexican political troubles.

The best way to help the Mexican situation is to open the border.

Mexico has no control over whether we have any illegal immigration.

Then why did President Fox present a handbook on how to cross into America Illegally?

Yes, downward.

Underclasses with no legal protection and limited organizational capacity are easier to exploit.

No, no. You misunderstand or I worded it badly.

I was referring to the laws that make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants.

It is state control on the labor force.

Then why did President Fox present a handbook on how to cross into America Illegally?

Notice the italicized word.

What's that? The statue of liberty is throwing a party with Lady Justice, and all the mexicans are invited! I am so there!

Corny, seriously, taking in immigrants is maybe the single most American thing there is. Get with the program.

I'm all for immigration. Nowhere did I say I was not for it. What I am against is illegal immigration and people overstaying their visas.

I'm all for immigration. Nowhere did I say I was not for it. What I am against is illegal immigration and people overstaying their visas.

I'm not sure if you can hold a thought for more than two sentences.

I'm all for immigration.
What I am against is illegal immigration

Justify this distinction.

If your basis is "the law says...", helpfully explain why the law matters.

You are indeed right but it is Mexico's economic problems that is forcing the illegal immigration problem.

And how can poor farmers who have to immigrate illegally to the US change Mexican economics? It seems that your entire "argument" (and I use the word loosely) is based around "this is the way it is, and I'm going to blindly accept that, ignoring everything that others say".

Justify this distinction.

If your basis is "the law says...", helpfully explain why the law matters.

and while doing the above, be sure to explain how you manage to think that a proposed change in immigration law is an abomination.

I was referring to the laws that make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants.

I was referring to laws restricting entry.

It is state control on the labor force.

Yes, it is.

That is why it is so amusing to see supposed "free-marketists" moan about the evil illegals destroying the country.

Its called taking back their country from those who run it.

Didn't know you were an Obrador supporter.

(Or an EZLN sympathizer? Even better!)

And how can poor farmers who have to immigrate illegally to the US change Mexican economics? It seems that your entire "argument" (and I use the word loosely) is based around "this is the way it is, and I'm going to blindly accept that, ignoring everything that others say".

Its called taking back their country from those who run it. That is easily to do in a democracy. It is called throwing the current people out of office and install new people who can actually fix the problem.

Granted it will not happen overnight but steps taken now will have far reaching effects that will be of benefit to the Mexicans.

Didn't know you were an Obrador supporter.

(Or an EZLN sympathizer? Even better!)

uh? :confused:

Its called taking back their country from those who run it. That is easily to do in a democracy. It is called throwing the current people out of office and install new people who can actually fix the problem.

Granted it will not happen overnight but steps taken now will have far reaching effects that will be of benefit to the Mexicans.

Last election in Mexico was pretty rigged; democracy is not as easy as you might think. As for a revolution, if you want to incite one, then go ahead.

Until then, simply blaming illegal immigrants because the Mexican government has not turned Mexico into an economic powerhouse is ridiculous.

Last election in Mexico was pretty rigged; democracy is not as easy as you might think. As for a revolution, if you want to incite one, then go ahead.

Until then, simply blaming illegal immigrants because the Mexican government has not turned Mexico into an economic powerhouse is ridiculous.

I blame the government of both the US and Mexico for not stopping this.

uh? :confused:

If you're so clueless about Mexican politics, why do you bother commenting on it?

If you're so clueless about Mexican politics, why do you bother commenting on it?

Because I do not like the Mexican government for not helping out their people nor their economy.

Just a thought :

While Mexico's poor economy is the result of a long history of bad government and bad management, this isn't necessarily all Mexico's fault. Repeated Western intervention - mostly, but not limited to the US - in Central and South America hindered economic development there for generations. Although Mexico was not usually the direct target of the interventions, destablizing forces in neighboring countries has large indirect effects, such as trouble with investors and trade. In this respect, America has at least contributed to the underdevelopment of Latin America, and thus to the current illegal immigration problem.

I blame the government of both the US and Mexico for not stopping this.

I concur, but if you admit it's the US and Mexican governments' fault for this, then why so harsh on illegal immigrants? Can you blame then for wanting to get out of poverty?

I concur, but if you admit it's the US and Mexican governments' fault for this, then why so harsh on illegal immigrants? Can you blame then for wanting to get out of poverty?

No but I do have a respect for US Federal Law.

No but I do have a respect for US Federal Law.

If your basis is "the law says...", helpfully explain why the law matters.

and while doing the above, be sure to explain how you manage to think that a proposed change in immigration law is an abomination.

Well?

If you're so clueless about Mexican politics, why do you bother commenting on it?

you expect corny to actually KNOW something about what he talks about? Are you new here?

No but I do have a respect for US Federal Law.

You're lying. If you respected federal law then you would respect this bill, as, should it pass, it would become federal law.

It is beyond lunacy to argue against a change in federal law because you...respect federal law.

You don't respect law, you respect law you agree with. If you respected law, by nature of being law, you would respect anything that beomes law...including this.

So, again, you're a liar. You only care about laws you agree with, and don't give a damn about the sanctity of law in general

... so let's look at this... shall we?

A bipartisan group of senators reached a delicate compromise today on what could be the biggest overhaul of immigration law in more than 40 years. The measure, which has the backing of the Bush administration, offers the nation's 12 million undocumented workers a route to legal status but would also bolster border patrols and enhanced enforcement of rules for hiring aliens. Hmmm... a ROUTE to Legal status, not legal status.

In addition, the agreement shifts immigration preferences away from the extended families of citizens toward more skilled and educated workers. ok, so instead of needing a family member to sponsor... you need an education and skills... of what level.

I really don't see this making things easier... especially if the worker is coming from an economically devistated country.

[snipped politician's opinions]

Under the deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee. ok, doesn't sound too bad.

A separate, temporary-worker program would be established for 400,000 migrants a year. Each temporary work visa would be good for two years and could be renewed up to three times, as long as the worker leaves the country for a year between renewals.hmm... this I'm not too sure about. it puts a strain into maintaining a database of migrant workers (but yay! more jobs) and I hope there is some punishment should a worker sneak across during his "year off"

To satisfy Republicans, those provisions would come in force only after the federal government implements tough new border controls and a crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants. Republicans are demanding 18,000 new Border Patrol agents, 370 miles of additional border fencing and an effective, electronic employee-verification system for the workplace. so, it's not going to be put into place right away? ok... this gives time for others to 'sneak' in.

President Bush, speaking at the White House this afternoon, endorsed the proposal and sought to dispel criticism that the measure is giving illegal immigrants amnesty. granted, it's not. but I just hope it's not adding more red tape that will blind officals to anyone else sneaking in.

Since 1965, migrants have needed a sponsor in the United States, meaning that virtually all immigrants have had family members or employers already here. The new proposal would augment that system with a merit-based program that would award points based on education levels, work experience and English proficiency, as well as family ties. Automatic family unifications would remain but would be limited to spouses and children under 21. The adult children and siblings of U.S. residents would probably need other credentials, such as skills and education, to qualify for an immigrant visa. A number of unskilled parents would be allowed in, but that flow would be capped. this, I'm not so sure about. sounds like narrowing the field...

The other hurdle will come from the temporary-worker program. The immigration bill that passed the Senate last year with bipartisan support would have allowed laborers entering the country as temporary workers to stay and work toward citizenship. But Republicans said this year that they could support such a program only if the workers would be truly temporary.

Immigration groups say such a program would only spur a new wave of illegal migration, as temporary workers go underground once their work permits expire. Perhaps more importantly, two powerful service unions -- the Service Employees International Union and Unite Here -- have threatened to pull their support from any immigration bill that would not give temporary workers a way to remain in the country, fearing that a truly temporary program would drive down wages for low-skill work.interesting point.

I do have some questions about the punishment a person would recieve should they be caught sneaking across the border or assisting anyone else sneaking across and harboring them? a slap on the wrist and fines? or would their visas/work licence be revoked and that person banned?

you expect corny to actually KNOW something about what he talks about?

No. But I am willing to be surprised.

You're lying. If you respected federal law then you would respect this bill, as, should it pass, it would become federal law. no he's not. since as you said, should it pass, it WOULD BECOME FEDERAL LAW. That means it's not yet a Federal law. ;)

It is beyond lunacy to argue against a change in federal law because you...respect federal law. change, while not always bad, is not always good. and since the Bill hasn't been voted into law yet...

You don't respect law, you respect law you agree with. If you respected law, by nature of being law, you would respect anything that beomes law...including this.respecting the law does not mean respecting POTENTIAL laws or even POSSIBLE laws. it means respecting the Law when it becomes the Law.

You're lying. If you respected federal law then you would respect this bill, as, should it pass, it would become federal law.

And I would too if it passed but it has not yet passed so I do not have to respect it. So tell me how I am lying please as it has not yet passed.

It is beyond lunacy to argue against a change in federal law because you...respect federal law.

I object on the grounds that it will make illegal immigrants, legal. That is what I object to. I do not mind an overhaul of the immigration laws. That does need to be done but to grant citizenship to lawbreakers is lunacy to me.

You don't respect law, you respect law you agree with.

Which shows how little you know of me. I respect the law. PERIOD!!! Even laws I disagree with, I respect.

If you respected law, by nature of being law, you would respect anything that beomes law...including this.

You are right but since this is NOT LAW, that does not apply for now. Do you understand?

So, again, you're a liar. You only care about laws you agree with, and don't give a damn about the sanctity of law in general

Prove I am a liar! How can I be a liar when I oppose this bill that is going to go to Congress and has not yet passed it?

I'll be the first to admit that laws are not always right. That's why I am an ardent supporter of "Jury Nulification". I also agree that disobeying a law that is wrong, doesn't make you evil; if anything it's an act of civil disobedience. Rosa Parks and MLK come to mind.

However, you have failed to raise a valid case for citing immigration law as being morally wrong. The cons of unchecked immigration and allowing people to get away with breaking the law far outweigh any benefits of the same lot. If the penalty for being found out as an illegal was death/and or torture, I would agree with you all 100% and then some as that punishment is overkill, but it is not. The price you pay is deportation.

A better solution would be to help, not control or demand, but help these countries so that people don't feel such a desperate need to come to America illegally. Helping the economic situations in the 3rd world would be a big start. And no not the way the CIA tried to do it in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. Another way would be to make it easier to come to America in the first place. Although now we get to the point of what an acceptable and healthy level of immigration is. Of course that would derail the point of this thread so I will spare all my opinion.


very rational opinion,and i agree.
unchecked illegal immigration is decidely bad for this country...the crime and human trafficking alone is reason enough to have more control of the borders,let alonre the possibility of terrorists slipping in.
i agree there is a need to have available options for those that want to come for work and are not crimminals and drug traffickers.
take alook at ms-13(a very violent gand composed of illegals and you would be crazy to not want to have some checks on unlimited or open borders.they are a violent cancerous group that commit alot of crimes and perpetrate horrible abuses and exploit other well intentioned illegals.
do i think immigration should be rformed to allow needy people that want to work in...yes,the way things are now...not at all.

no he's not. since as you said, should it pass, it WOULD BECOME FEDERAL LAW. That means it's not yet a Federal law. ;)

change, while not always bad, is not always good. and since the Bill hasn't been voted into law yet...

respecting the law does not mean respecting POTENTIAL laws or even POSSIBLE laws. it means respecting the Law when it becomes the Law.

He being a lawyer does not understand. I am surprised he fails to understand the difference between laws already on the books (and several need to be purged for being outdated) and those not yet on the books (like this one)

Frankly speaking how you can say you respect the law, whatever that law may be, by virtue of being law, while on the other hand being opposed to.....a proposed law, is totally disengenuous. As I said, you don't respect law. You just respect law you agree with.

Which shows how little you know of me. I respect the law. PERIOD!!! Even laws I disagree with, I respect.

Gun
Control

Frankly speaking how you can say you respect the law, whatever that law may be, by virtue of being law, while on the other hand being opposed to.....a proposed law, is totally disengenuous. As I said, you don't respect law. You just respect law you agree with.

I love how you are twisting things. I respect current US FEDERAL LAWS and all state laws. This is not law. I would love for all the immigration laws we do have to be fully enforced everywhere in this country (including cities).

Does the immigration laws need to be overhauled? Most definitely but I do not support this bill whatsoever.

So tell me, how the fuck can you say I do not respect the law?

I love how you are twisting things. I respect current US FEDERAL LAWS and all state laws. This is not law. I would love for all the immigration laws we do have to be fully enforced everywhere in this country (including cities).

Does the immigration laws need to be overhauled? Most definitely but I do not support this bill whatsoever.

So tell me, how the fuck can you say I do not respect the law?

because nobody who had respect for the law would butcher it on such a regular basis as I've seen you do.

Gun
Control

What about it? I do not like it but as we have laws on the books dealing with it, I respect it. Period.

because nobody who had respect for the law would butcher it on such a regular basis as I've seen you do.

So you are telling me that I cannot complain about laws even though complaining about laws =/= disrespecting them?

No but I do have a respect for US Federal Law.

If your basis is "the law says...", helpfully explain why the law matters.and while doing the above, be sure to explain how you manage to think that a proposed change in immigration law is an abomination.
Well?

*looks at watch*

Some might say that that's the fault of the Mexican government and the conditions there rather than our immigration laws.

As much as our immigration system needed an overhaul, you can't deny that part of the blame lies with them as well.
Part of the blaim does, yes, but I assign the lion's share to our current immigration laws that makes it damn near impossible to legally immigrate if you're in those kind of conditions.

Part of the blaim does, yes, but I assign the lion's share to our current immigration laws that makes it damn near impossible to legally immigrate if you're in those kind of conditions.

Unfortunatly, this won't solve that problem. since they will now put merits on how well they speak english, their education and skill levels.

Adults over 21 now can't rely on relations or contacts in the USA.

Unfortunatly, this won't solve that problem. since they will now put merits on how well they speak english, their education and skill levels.

Adults over 21 now can't rely on relations or contacts in the USA.

And that is one more reason to oppose this bill.

Unfortunatly, this won't solve that problem. since they will now put merits on how well they speak english, their education and skill levels.

Adults over 21 now can't rely on relations or contacts in the USA.
That's why I am not thrilled with this bill as it doesn't really solve any of the issues in the first place, except for providing a way to obtain legal status for the 12 million currently here (er, there, er... I need to figure out where I am again).

That's why I am not thrilled with this bill as it doesn't really solve any of the issues in the first place, except for providing a way to obtain legal status for the 12 million currently here (er, there, er... I need to figure out where I am again).

If you are still in Japan (a nation I want to visit one day), it is currently there :D

That's why I am not thrilled with this bill as it doesn't really solve any of the issues in the first place, except for providing a way to obtain legal status for the 12 million currently here (er, there, er... I need to figure out where I am again).
agreed. But I like the fact that they're trying.

To all who called "Corneliu" racist, please refrain from future ad hominem remarks as they don't win you arguements or debates.. I think I am going to call him Anti-Semite or terrorist-suppporter.. I know its provably not going to win the debate.. but its worth a try ;)

I object on the grounds that it will make illegal immigrants, legal. That is what I object to. I do not mind an overhaul of the immigration laws. That does need to be done but to grant citizenship to lawbreakers is lunacy to me.
Hang on, hang on.

Under the deal, undocumented workers who crossed into the country before Jan. 1 would be offered a temporary-residency permit while they await a new "Z Visa" that would allow them to live and work lawfully here. The head of an illegal-immigrant household would have eight years to return to his or her home country to apply for permanent legal residence for members of the household, but each Z Visa itself would be renewable indefinitely, as long as the holder passes a criminal background check, remains fully employed and pays a $5,000 fine, plus a paperwork-processing fee.
That's not granting citizenship to lawbreakers. That's allowing them a temporary residency permit, surely?

I assume you mean Native Americans, not Indians?

So the indians should decide who lives in the US?

I do ? :p

agreed. But I like the fact that they're trying.
That's far better than doing nothing, yes. I just wish they did something that, you know, actually addresses the problem.

If you are still in Japan (a nation I want to visit one day), it is currently there :D
I need grammar capable of describing that I am an American so they are over where my homeland is while I am currently residing overseas.

Sadly, the time grammar of HHGTTG doesn't work. :(

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051700253.html?hpid=topnews

This pisses me off than anything else. These people are here illegally and now we are going to reward them by making them citizens? That is nuts! Just plain nuts. They all should be rounded up and deported with armed guards on the borders to stop them from crossing again.
And then you all can turn around and watch as your lawns grow, your washing piles up and all your vegetables on farms and fruit in orchards rot.

maybe after they are "legal" we can get some taxes out of them.
vast majority already do - and at a higher rate than residents, as they don't fill in claims to get tax rebates.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Mexican.jpg

I think I am going to call him Anti-Semite or terrorist-suppporter.. I know its provably not going to win the debate.. but its worth a try ;)

An Anti-Semite eh? Brave talk coming from you. BTW: I know that I am not an anti-semite for all respect and like semetic people. Its the terrorist smucks I despise.

And then you all can turn around and watch as your lawns grow, your washing piles up and all your vegetables on farms and fruit in orchards rot.

I cut my own laws and I do my own wash and I do not grow vegetable and fruit.

I cut my own laws and I do my own wash and I do not grow vegetable and fruit.
I do believe he meant you in the 'American People' sense.

Also: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12663503&postcount=104
*coughs*

I do believe he meant you in the 'American People' sense.

Also: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12663503&postcount=104
*coughs*

Most people cut their own lawns and do their own washing. My Fiance's roommate grows vegetables and tends to them herself. As did my Grandfather before he passed on.

Alot of people do their own things without illegal immigration or even legal immigration help.

Most people cut their own lawns and do their own washing. My Fiance's roommate grows vegetables and tends to them herself. As did my Grandfather before he passed on.

Alot of people do their own things without illegal immigration or even legal immigration help.

Yes we all know that. However, large farms often employ fruit + veg pickers. These are often migrant workers, and a significant percentage of them are illegal immigrants. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Most people cut their own lawns and do their own washing. My Fiance's roommate grows vegetables and tends to them herself. As did my Grandfather before he passed on.

Alot of people do their own things without illegal immigration or even legal immigration help.
Um, I don't think he's referring to gardens but the ag-sector which has grown very dependent on migrant (most illegal) workers to harvest the fruits and veggies that feed the nation.

Actually, I remember an article not too long back that talked about this problem. It seems with the housing boom in California, much more money is too be made in construction than harvesting, meaning there is not enough workers to pick everything. Last year farmers reported having to leave stuff rotting on the vine due to lack of workers and the fear is that this year will be worse.

An Anti-Semite eh? Brave talk coming from you. BTW: I know that I am not an anti-semite for all respect and like semetic people. Its the terrorist smucks I despise.

Irony is quite clearly lost on you.

Most people cut their own lawns and do their own washing. My Fiance's roommate grows vegetables and tends to them herself. As did my Grandfather before he passed on.

Alot of people do their own things without illegal immigration or even legal immigration help.

are you intentionally being this disingenuous?

are you intentionally being this disingenuous?

Yep :D

Yep :D

well I do believe that's called "trolling"...but good on you for admitting it, at least.

I see, Mexico has a corrupt government and severe economic issues including crippling poverty and rather than help them solve those problems we should just open our borders and say "come on in."

I'd say you're attacking a symptom instead of the root. Our immigration system, as I said before, needed an overhaul, but to say Mexico is completely blameless in the issue is absurd.

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

And then you all can turn around and watch as your lawns grow, your washing piles up and all your vegetables on farms and fruit in orchards rot. I cut my own laws and I do my own wash and I do not grow vegetable and fruit.I do believe he meant you in the 'American People' sense.
My family did their own lawn (great form of exercise) and our own laundry.

now if the Illegals were removed... then all those homeless/unemployed can be encouraged to do those jobs on those farms. they can use the Agricultural industry to get back on their feet.

so me and soheran's questions remain unanswered. anybody care to explain how they justify the distinction between immigration statuses? and then explain why, if it is the legality alone that matters, they would care if congress signed a law retroactively granting citizenship to everyone in the country? cause i hear this line from lots of people and it seems plainly nonsensical.

Fine, I'll be happy to do so. The current system is set up in a way to make it next to impossible to actually immigrate to the US unless you have a family member in the US willing to sponsor you, you have a job willing to do the same, and you make a good deal of money. Sadly, most of the people currently living illegally in the US do not have family inside the US who can do so, do not have jobs willing to sponsor them, and were not making all that much money.

It's fine to say, "Well, they should just immigrate legally like everyone else (Insert a my family came through Ellis Island story here, even though immigration laws back then were radically different)". However, no one has actually answered my responding question of, "It takes about $3,000 (US) to get a visa and the wait is currently 6 to 8 years for it to come through, with nothing saying you're actually going to get one even after spending that time and money. So how is a farmer making about $20 a day, if that, and needing to feed his family now supposed to be able to immigrate legally?"

It's a nice Hobson's choice/Catch-22.

I already agreed with all of the above about the price and difficulty most people have in coming here. You also misrepresent one fact. You are not required to have a family member in America as a requirement, but mearly a sponsor. This sponsor, however, can be any American. My dad has personally sponsored two people. One from Brazil and another from France. They are not in any way/shape/form a part of my family.

I also offered my opinion to the solution to everything you stated. You come off as begging the question ...

I have never needed to point out that the law is morally wrong, the only argument against illegal immigrants so far is that they are illegal. All I needed to do is show that "illegal" does not equal "wrong" and the argument is destroyed.



Or we cease to tell people that they cannot cross over rivers.

They are illegal because they have commited a crime. It's quite essentially common sense. I agreed laws can be morally wrong, not that out current immigration laws are. You're trying to prove that our current immigration laws are morally wrong, therefore, vindicating all illegal immigrants of their crime. It doesn't work like that I'm affraid. This ties in to your second statement about an "Open-Door Policy". In the past when America had one of those, our population was around 3 million. There was more than enough land, resources and job potential.

Today there is still a three in our populations number but now you have to multiply that by 100. While there may still be enough land, resources and job potential, allowing unchecked immigration through an open-door policy would be detrimental to our nations health. This would eat up what land, resources and job potential there is left, thereby undermining my "pursuit of happiness". Not all of us are as selfless as you. Willing to sacrifice it all to make others happy. Le sad ...

An open-door policy is great for people who want to feel good about themselves, but it defies all logic. The same people who are for this type of policy also complain about low wages and a lack of employment. Illegal immigration is a contributing factor, and in some areas the predominate one, to the problem of low wages and high unemployment. It comes across as hypocritical to me to allow this while in the same breath complaining about a lack of wage growth, employment and so forth. It's amazing that one would actually be willing to destroy their home, their neighbors and indeed the whole block, in order to make a few less fortunate people happy when there are ways to help them and keep your everything else in tack.

They are illegal because it is they have commited a crime. It's quite essentially common sense. I agreed laws can be morally wrong, not that out current immigration laws are. You're trying to prove that our current immigration laws are morally wrong, therefore, vindicating all illegal immigrants of their crime. It doesn't work like that I'm affraid.

so if you agree that laws can be morally wrong, then you cannot use violation of the law alone as a reason why something is bad. which leaves it to you to justify your position that illegal immigration is wrong in some other fashion. vittos' task is done until then.

oh and,

Illegal immigration is a contributing factor, and in some areas the predominate one, to the problem of low wages and high unemployment.

source?

You all continue to beg the question. This is circular logic people. I also give you credit for dodging and actually having to answer for yourselves.

I have stated a very logical reason. Bad is not the same as wrong, but often they go hand and hand. Illegals aren't bad, but they are wrong in what they've done. This whole debate on what is "Wrong" and "Bad" is dependant on a person's opinion of this whole situation, creating any number of conundrums hence following my first statement.

Illegal immigrants have broken the law. You don't agree with it, obviously, but it doesn't deny this obvious fact. If I have failed, and I haven't in my opinion, to answer Vitto's question, then you all have failed to answer how our immigration laws are morally wrong, thereby vindicating all these people. And please no Ad Hominem remarks and conjecture. Logical answers only please.

oh and,



source?

Common sense on a basic principal of economics? Plus I'm to lazy to actually search through a huge database.

You all continue to beg the question. This is circular logic people. I also give you credit for dodging and actually having to answer for yourselves.

I have stated a very logical reason. Bad is not the same as wrong, but often they go hand and hand. Illegals aren't bad, but they are wrong in what they've done. This whole debate on what is "Wrong" and "Bad" is dependant on a person's opinion of this whole situation, creating any number of conundrums hence following my first statement.

Illegal immigrants have broken the law. You don't agree with it, obviously, but it doesn't deny this obvious fact. If I have failed, and I haven't in my opinion, to answer Vitto's question, then you all have failed to answer how our immigration laws are morally wrong, thereby vindicating all these people. And please no Ad Hominem remarks and conjecture. Logical answers only please.

so is your 'justification' that you agree with the law or is it that laws are to be presumed just until demonstrated otherwise?

Common sense on a basic principal of economics? Plus I'm to lazy to actually search through a huge database.

yeah, see, you might want to try checking into that, as your assertion is flat out wrong.

So wanting to stop illegal immigration makes me a racist? How the hell does that compute? And overstaying visas makes one a criminal. Now you want to support lawbreakers. Luckily I do not support law breakers and want them punished. This does not do that.

Being a law does not make it right necessarily

so is your 'justification' that you agree with the law or is it that laws are to be presumed just until demonstrated otherwise?

I really hate repeating myself and I have done about 2 pages of it. I thought I had made my stance on illegal immigration quite clear. By answering this question, and you still not answering mine, I only risk giving you another point to misconscrew which will likely, based on past responses, lead to more begging of the question. So am affraid I will stop here untill you answer mine as I have answered plenty.

yeah, see, you might want to try checking into that, as your assertion is flat out wrong.

Source?

That is why it is so amusing to see supposed "free-marketists" moan about the evil illegals destroying the country.

Actually, inerestingly enough, it is the free-market advocate Republicans who are essentially ignoring their constituents in favor of compromise with the Democrats. The conservatives that are bemoaning this are actually the populist, social conservatives who favor protectionism. Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, etc. etc. George W. Bush and his ilk stand to profit from a continuation of illegal immigration.

Illegal immigrants have broken the law.

So?

(Why is it so difficult to get an answer to this simple question?)

Common sense on a basic principal of economics?

That more people means lower wages and unemployment?

Really?

vast majority already do - and at a higher rate than residents, as they don't fill in claims to get tax rebates.
actually no. Most of them (around here anyway) get paid in cash, they then go buy money orders from the gas station and send that money back to Mexico to their families and then go get welfare to live off of.

Just a thought :

While Mexico's poor economy is the result of a long history of bad government and bad management, this isn't necessarily all Mexico's fault. Repeated Western intervention - mostly, but not limited to the US - in Central and South America hindered economic development there for generations. Although Mexico was not usually the direct target of the interventions, destablizing forces in neighboring countries has large indirect effects, such as trouble with investors and trade. In this respect, America has at least contributed to the underdevelopment of Latin America, and thus to the current illegal immigration problem.

You bring up very valid points. But I think you missed the biggest one and that which brings us to the hypocrisy of criticizing Mexicans for being too poor: the economic system we perpetuate is THE main cause of country's like Mexico not being able to prosper. I don't mean to wax socialist here but it's NAFTA and other bastions of free-market capitalism that keep poor Mexicans flooding over into the United States. If we (and by we, I mean the United States, China, India, Russia, and the EU) were less focused on industrial domination of the global periphery, a much healthier system arise, a system in which we would not need to be having this endlessly tedious and, for all intents and purposes, pointless discussion.

[I say pointless, not because it is unimportant, but because Corny is never going to relent in his pseudo-rationally veiled xenophobia and we will never relent in our ardent disapproval of this disgustnigly backward-looking position.]

I really hate repeating myself and I have done about 2 pages of it. I thought I had made my stance on illegal immigration quite clear.

ah, i think i've found the problem. you don't understand the question being asked of you.

your stance is clear. now fucking justify it.

Source?

http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-me-immigstudy28feb28,1,1960754,full.story

(Why is it so difficult to get an answer to this simple question?)

seriously, this is fucking ridiculous.

actually no. Most of them (around here anyway) get paid in cash, they then go buy money orders from the gas station and send that money back to Mexico to their families and then go get welfare to live off of.

How can illegal aliens live off welfare?:confused:

They may burden state facilities, but do they actually get food stamps and such ?

That more people means lower wages and unemployment?

Really?

As with any commodity, an increase in its supply will decrease its price; the same applies to labor. However, those who will be willing to accept the lower wage will most likely be the illegal immigrants, not legal Americans. Although overall unemployment would decrease, unemployment among legal Americans will increase as those seeking to enter the labor force will have a much harder time finding a job due to the fierce competition.

Furthermore, illegal immigration is "bad" because it is an immoral action which flaunts the legal foundation of this country. Should it be legalized, the action of crossing the border would no longer be "bad"; however, laws reflect our national character. Breaking them may give the US an economic boost, but would go against the democratic will of the American people. What the people want may not always seem "correct" to you, but we must abide by the public's decision; that's what makes this country great. Only the public has the right to determine immigration laws by electing politicians with whose views on the topic they agree.

How can illegal aliens live off welfare?:confused:

They may burden state facilities, but do they actually get food stamps and such ?

until recently there was a way for them to get up to 3 months of checks without ID, so they would get it under one name in the household, and then when the 3 months was up they would get it under someone else's name, ect. They got food stamps, WIC, welfare checks, section 8 housing, free lunches at school....the list goes on.

As with any commodity, an increase in its supply will decrease its price; the same applies to labor.

so everyone's wages were ridiculously high in 1870 compared to today?

What the people want may not always seem "correct" to you, but we must abide by the public's decision

blacks in the back, eh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/17/AR2007051700253.html?hpid=topnews

This pisses me off than anything else. These people are here illegally and now we are going to reward them by making them citizens? That is nuts! Just plain nuts. They all should be rounded up and deported with armed guards on the borders to stop them from crossing again.

The only bright spot in all of this is:



This is an abominition to America and must be fought.


I quite agree. It disempowers the law in the minds of any who contemplate illegal immigration, thus simply expanding the problem.

blacks in the back, eh?
laws can be unjust, but there are better and more moral ways to change them then by repeatedly breaking them.

As with any commodity, an increase in its supply will decrease its price; the same applies to labor.

Yes, to labor.

Human beings are not only laborers... we have this strange tendency to consume things, too.

However, those who will be willing to accept the lower wage will most likely be the illegal immigrants, not legal Americans.

So?

Furthermore, illegal immigration is "bad" because it is an immoral action which flaunts the legal foundation of this country.

How is it immoral? And why should we assume that just because people violate immigration laws, they have no respect for any other kind of law?

Indeed, the evidence indicates otherwise.

Breaking them may give the US an economic boost, but would go against the democratic will of the American people.

The American people do not have the right to discriminate based on place of birth.

No one does.

What the people want may not always seem "correct" to you, but we must abide by the public's decision;

Whatever the public does? Really?

laws can be unjust, but there are better and more moral ways to change them then by repeatedly breaking them.

Wouldn't civil disobiedience, by necessity, require breaking the law in question?

laws can be unjust, but there are better and more moral ways to change them then by repeatedly breaking them.

and again i say, blacks in the back

until recently there was a way for them to get up to 3 months of checks without ID, so they would get it under one name in the household, and then when the 3 months was up they would get it under someone else's name, ect. They got food stamps, WIC, welfare checks, section 8 housing, free lunches at school....the list goes on.

and I jumped through hoops to get here..:headbang:

I should have jumped the fence instead.

Wouldn't civil disobiedience, by necessity, require breaking the law in question?

that was an interesting choice of response to my statement, wasn't it

and again i say, blacks in the back

I really like how you guys can't come up with anything better than to call me a racist.

Wouldn't civil disobiedience, by necessity, require breaking the law in question?

sure, but I don't consider civil disobedience always right either.

and I jumped through hoops to get here..:headbang:

I should have jumped the fence instead.

well, only if you like being in an absolutely precarious position where there is a legally recognized 'right' of your employer to not pay you at all and you have to keep your head down or face incarceration and deportation.

the real solution is to make it so that nobody has to jump through hoops and nobody is in a position to be legally abused.

Yes, to labor. Human beings are not only laborers... we have this strange tendency to consume things, too.

Actually, it's a very normal tendency; furthermore, consumption is not related to wages (to any significant degree in this case), so it has no bearing on this discussion.

The American people do not have the right to discriminate based on place of birth.

Of course we do. If we want to stop a flood of poor people from coming over, we reserve the right to bar their way; back in 1882, we prevented an entire race of people from emigrating to the US. Now we simply prevent an excess of people from crossing the border. The American people are entitled to having their will implemented through our system of government; all else would be anti-democratic. If we don't want them to come, we can kick them out (or worse).

Whatever the public does? Really?

As long as it lies within the framework of our system of government.

I really like how you guys can't come up with anything better than to call me a racist.

i don't recall saying that. i merely pointed out that your position amounts to keeping blacks in the back, by denying the methods that were needed to end that injustice.

furthermore, consumption is not related to wages (to any significant degree in this case)

Why not?

Increased demand for products translates into increased demand for labor. That's why natural population growth doesn't cause massive unemployment.

Of course we do. If we want to stop a flood of poor people from coming over, we reserve the right to bar their way; back in 1882, we prevented an entire race of people from emigrating to the US.

Yes, legally we have the right.

We have no MORAL right to do so.

The American people are entitled to having their will implemented through our system of government; all else would be anti-democratic.

Highly questionable, since in this case they are making decisions about the rights of millions of OTHER people.

Would it be "democratic" for the American public to vote to impose a dictatorship somewhere else?

And even if it were democratic, that still would not make it just.

As long as it lies within the framework of our system of government.

Just because we can do it under our framework of government does not mean that we ought to.

i don't recall saying that. i merely pointed out that your position amounts to keeping blacks in the back, by denying the methods that were needed to end that injustice.

those methods were not "needed" in fact, I doubt they did much at all, boycotting probably helped more than a few people who refused to get up and move.

Why not?

Increased demand for products translates into increased demand for labor. That's why natural population growth doesn't cause massive unemployment.

And that's why I referred to the case of illegal immigration in specific. The extra demand which comes from such people does not compensate for the increase in the supply of labor. They are typically not big spenders and may even send money to their home country (which, obviously, does not boost demand in the US at all).

We have no MORAL right to do so.

So?

Would it be "democratic" for the American public to vote to impose a dictatorship somewhere else?

Yes, of course. The point of the US government is to serve the American people; thus, it must carry out their desires even if such wishes necessitate the breaking of international law.

Just because we can do it under our framework of government does not mean that we ought to.

Obviously. So what? We can vote to prevent mooses from being ridden into towns which have a population that is greater than 10,000 people. We ought not implement such a crazy law, but if the people want it done, it should be done.

so everyone's wages were ridiculously high in 1870 compared to today?

Yikes, that's devastating.

Kudos, but I wouldn't expect a reply.

and may even send money to their home country

Where it will probably do even more good.

So?

So it would be immoral for them to do it.

There is no obligation to obey an immoral law.

The point of the US government is to serve the American people;

So?

Why is the point of the US government at all relevant?

but if the people want it done, it should be done.

Why?

Yikes, that's devastating.

Kudos, but I wouldn't expect a reply.

What do you mean? There was a huge influx of immigrants during the second half of the 18th century (have you ever heard of the APA?) and a very high fertility rate compared to today; as a result, a rapidly growing labor force precluded great increases in wages.

Where it will probably do even more good.

Perhaps, but I was debating the effect of such immigrants on wages, not where their wealth would be most effective.

There is no obligation to obey an immoral law.

I wouldn't characterize the law as "immoral," simply self-serving. Also, I never claimed that illegal immigrants do not benefit from their criminal actions; they do, that's why they commit such transgressions in the first place. It is our duty to enforce the laws.

Why is the point of the US government at all relevant?

Because the US government carries out the will of the American people by deporting illegal immigrants and enforcing our system of laws. Without it, we would be awash in illegal immigrants.

Why?

Because that is the democratic foundation upon which our government is based; it is theorized that a population will benefit if its majority will is implemented, as opposed to the will of a tyrant. It has been firmly established that democracy is one of the best, if not the best, ways for ensuring that the wants of a society are met.

as a result, a rapidly growing labor force precluded great increases in wages.

By your argument, the much higher population now would result in much lower wages, as there is a much higher labor supply.

Since wages are higher now than in 1870, your argument is demonstrably false.

A hint, though: explore education levels and their effect on aggregate labor values and you might actually make a decent argument for how immigration can lower wages.

But even if you do that you are simply making a positive statement and trying to pass it off as a normative statement, and this is the same fallacy that is committed in the "law is right" argument.

I wouldn't characterize the law as "immoral," simply self-serving.

The enforcement of arbitrary privilege is both self-serving and immoral.

Because the US government carries out the will of the American people by deporting illegal immigrants and enforcing our system of laws.

You are missing the point.

Fundamentally the problem is that you are still mangling is-ought; the purpose of the US government is to carry out the will of the American public (is), therefore it is acceptable for the US government to do whatever the American public wills (ought).

That simply does not follow.

Without it, we would be awash in illegal immigrants.

Unless we lowered the standards.

it is theorized that a population will benefit if its majority will is implemented, as opposed to the will of a tyrant.

Yes, but this does not mean that the democracy is always right, or that it need always be obeyed.

At most it means that it should not be overthrown (or, at least, if it is, that it should be replaced by something equally or more democratic.)

and I jumped through hoops to get here..:headbang:

I should have jumped the fence instead.

Well, this is one citizen who is glad you didn't jump the fence. :fluffle:

By your argument, the much higher population now would result in much lower wages, as there is a much higher labor supply.

Since wages are higher now than in 1870, your argument is demonstrably false.

A hint, though: explore education levels and their effect on aggregate labor values and you might actually make a decent argument for how immigration can lower wages.

But even if you do that you are simply making a positive statement and trying to pass it off as a normative statement, and this is the same fallacy that is committed in the "law is right" argument.

Here's a hint for you: don't be a condescending ass when you don't know what you're talking about. Simplistically speaking, wages are affected by two factors: the supply of workers and the demand for the products they produce. Obviously, demand has increased enormously since the last half of the 19th century. I stated as much in my previous post.

Yes, but this does not mean that the democracy is always right, or that it need always be obeyed.

No, it's better if democracy continues to exist undisturbed until such a time when an improper decision is made; then, you could be the one to change the course. Nobody has the right to decide when to obey democracy and when not to; that would contradict the entire purpose of democracy (unless you're referring to the decision of illegal immigrants to enter, as their criminal act would benefit them regardless of our proud democratic tradition). And if the purpose of democratic government is to carry out the will of the people, it ought to carry out the will of the people: that's painfully logical.

Simplistically speaking, wages are affected by two factors: the supply of workers and the demand for the products they produce.

Nominal wages are effected by the supply of workers and the demand for their product, but they tend towards a natural equilibrium, and therefore in the long run nominal wages are meaningless.

It is real wages that we should be concerned with, because they measure the increase in that natural equilibrium that wages tend towards.

As such, real wages are effected by the overall productivity of the workforce, ie education and technology. An influx of undereducated labor will cause a lowering of the average productivity of the labor force, and lower the average wage of the labor force.

It really was a hint.

Nobody has the right to decide when to obey democracy and when not to;

No one should ever obey for the sake of obeying, democracy or whatever. There is no moral obligation to follow any law just because it is a law.

that would contradict the entire purpose of democracy

The only legitimate purpose of democracy is to bring the laws as close as possible to justice.

We are obligated to act justly. That means that we have an obligation to obey just laws. But we have no obligation to obey unjust laws, whatever government makes them, because the only legitimate end of governance is justice.

And if the purpose of democratic government is to carry out the will of the people, it ought to carry out the will of the people: that's painfully logical.

No, it's not. It's still an instance of the is-ought fallacy.

The purpose of shooting a gun may be killing someone. Does that mean that the person ought to die?

Just an interesting note, this compromise apparently is not being well received in both chambers of Congress. This maybe a bipartisan deal but yet, both sides of the aisle are opposed to this legislation as well.

Chances of it passing are not that great.

Just an interesting note, this compromise apparently is not being well received in both chambers of Congress. This maybe a bipartisan deal but yet, both sides of the aisle are opposed to this legislation as well.

Chances of it passing are not that great.

any link?

any link?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_go_co/immigration_congress

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_go_co/immigration_congress

thnks.

Just an interesting note, this compromise apparently is not being well received in both chambers of Congress. This maybe a bipartisan deal but yet, both sides of the aisle are opposed to this legislation as well.

Chances of it passing are not that great.

There's a saying back home: "If both sides aren't happy, then it's probably a good compromise."

Unfortunately, I agree. There are too many folk that want nothing less than amnesty and citizenship and just as many on the other side that want nothing less than shipping them all back home.

There's a saying back home: "If both sides aren't happy, then it's probably a good compromise."

Unfortunately, I agree. There are too many folk that want nothing less than amnesty and citizenship and just as many on the other side that want nothing less than shipping them all back home.

And let us not forget the Unions.

yo, corny

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12662721&postcount=67
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12662731&postcount=69

I already agreed with all of the above about the price and difficulty most people have in coming here. You also misrepresent one fact. You are not required to have a family member in America as a requirement, but mearly a sponsor. This sponsor, however, can be any American. My dad has personally sponsored two people. One from Brazil and another from France. They are not in any way/shape/form a part of my family.
Re-read what I originally wrote, "Makes it next to impossible to immigrate UNLESS you have a family member..."

I also offered my opinion to the solution to everything you stated. You come off as begging the question ...
You stated that the previous poster did not show what was morally wrong with the current system, I took up the challenge to show that the current system offers a false choice, making it morally wrong.

And no, you did NOT answer my question on how someone is supposed to manage legal immigration with the cards stacked against him like that.