As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4toArlington, VARegistered User regular
edited August 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
I'm not sure if this is the place to put this, because it's not news, so much as an essay I wrote trying to get an opinion out of people

Civem Americanum Sum

“Civem Romanum Sum” was a very powerful phrase in the late Roman Empire, in fact it was this precise phrase that made Cicero’s first case. It was over the corruption of the governor of Sicily, and the climax of the case was the unlawful punishment of a Roman citizen who declared his citizenship, for in the Roman Republic, it was the citizens who had legal rights, while noncitizens were barely more than slaves, and often were slaves. The American constitution, and American political culture in general is highly influenced by two major political traditions—the Republicanism and law system of Rome and the anti-monarchism of the Enlightenment. Coming out of this tradition, there is a marked lack of rights given specifically to all human beings, and those that are given are limitations of the state and not enfranchisements.

This original tradition came up relatively few times after the Civil War, after which the 13th and 14th amendments attempted to spread the rights to all American citizens. However, the tradition has come back with a vengeance now that the noncitizen population is an issue, almost to the degree that the second tradition—that the state cannot infringe upon certain inherent rights—is being canceled out. Why is that? Is it because the Roman tradition is so inherently authoritarian that even the use of it in American politics pollutes it, or is it something more?

Now, anti-immigrant sentiment is not a purely American phenomenon—no people can lay singular claim to xenophobia. Immigrants are a worldwide human rights issue, because human rights are traditionally protected (to whatever degree) by states and the legal systems of states. These legal systems tend to be citizen oriented, following in the ancient Roman tradition. Beyond this, non-legal immigrants are doubly excluded from systems that would protect their rights, for they are outsiders in their community and outsiders in their polity. This further enrages the ‘native’ populace by creating an Other which (generally) cannot legally strike back against any rights violations. Beyond this, the presence of an Other which cannot represent itself explains the rise of far rightist and nationalist parties in Europe—because the anti-migrant sentiment is enflamed by the rising unemployment in sectors where people are outcompeted by immigrants, but pro-migrant sentiment is muted because the migrants cannot vote.

But America does not have a multi-party system of government, and such fringe elements have a far harder time gaining control over the political dialogue. Perhaps the radicalization resulting from this would explain incidents like ranchers shooting at border crossers with high-powered rifles [1], but I would suggest another large reason for historical anti-immigrant sentiment—that the American economy is addicted to cheap labor and that we are ashamed of it.

The Constitution was written by men who were highly aware of Roman political philosophy, one that gave almost all of its rights to citizens. One could say that it was the tradition that caused this legal choice, but I would suggest that it was because the circumstances were similar. Slavery was an issue that cancelled out entirely the question of Human Rights—because giving all ‘human beings’ rights opens the precedent of giving slaves rights, something which, economically, was not possible. America, as a primarily financial and agricultural power during the antebellum period, needed slaves for a large degree of its output. The disgust that came out of this created the basis of the 19th century Republican party—the concept of “Free Labor” as opposed to wage slavery or slave labor.

This ideal of the Republican Party representing the ideals of free farmers influenced its position on immigration greatly, and, after the Civil War made slavery a very easy way to score rhetorical points, changed the kind of dialogue that occurred over immigration. The Page Act, named for the GOP congressman who introduced it, was the first anti-immigration bill passed, and it was so passed because of the perception of Chinese women as possible sex slaves or “prostitutes” [2]. This Act set a precedent for the Republican Party, as the party of the little man trying to get by, and of the freedman, to also be the party of anti-immigrant sentiment being passed through legislature. This apparent contradiction becomes easier to understand when one connects that the demographics of freedmen and small farmers are likely to compete with migrants, and that the plank of ‘free labor’ comes in contradiction with what was perceived as unfairly cheap migrant labor.

As a result of this situation, the most sweeping anti-immigration laws in the 1920’s and 80’s were passed under Republican presidents. But the addiction that explains the constant pressure for anti-migrant sentiment is also why real anti-immigrant laws will not be passed, because even if it was plausible, no one is incentivized to totally end the flow of illegal immigrants into America. The politicians would lose the support of angered anti-immigrants, and it would be a massive blow to the American economy, of a magnitude of roughly 10 billion dollars a year [3]. This means that those who vote—the populace, the roving masses, the people who are worked up by the anti-migrant rhetoric—will only become more and more enraged as time goes on, until a conclusion is reached.

Recently there have been several policy suggestions regarding immigrants. There has been a fence placed over the easy to cross areas of the US-Mexican border, which has funnelled migrants through a blazing desert. It has been estimated that more than 350 people a year attempting to cross this border [4], and this hasn't slowed the migration. In another half measure, the guest worker program has been expanded greatly in recent years. However because the guest workers can only work 1 job in the 9-18 months they are in the country for, labor law violations are rife--many employers bring in migrants with no intent on paying them [5]. This, along with the strengthening of ICE (the governmental group that deports people) have made the lives of migrants far worse, and have violated their human rights far more, without slowing the level of migration into the US. Thus, with the failures of the half-way measures I have described, and with the trend in human rights and the economic gains, the only actual conclusion I can see is an opening of US borders.


1--Who has a Right to Rights?, Maher, page 30
2--Page Act of 1875
3--The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, CIA report
4--Wiki article
5--wiki article

Ethan Smith on
«13456736

Posts

  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Well people opposed to illegal immigration aren't anti immigrant, they're anti illegal alien.

    There is no such thing as an "undocumented migrant worker", "undocumented alien", or any other bastardization of the term. Everyone who is not a citizen or a national of the US is a either an immigrant or an alien. If they're an alien, they're either here legally or not. The terms above, as well as "border crosser" and so on, are just people with a vested interest in the debate trying to tug on heart strings.

    Two other things. In the 50's, it was Truman who initiated Operation: Wetback, which was a mass deportation of illegal aliens to free up jobs for citizens. In the 80s, it was Reagan who granted amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens already in the country.

    And the things I could tell you about ICE, oh lordy.

    As an aside, ranchers tend to shoot at illegal aliens crossing because they're tired of having their property vandalized, robbed, broken into, and having their friends, family, and themselves assaulted and murdered. Not everyone coming across the line is some dude who just wants a job.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    The essay was more an explanation for why we've always had the weird combination of being both an immigrant nation and a nation with a strong amount of anti-migrant sentiment. A lot of the people who say that they're just anti-illegal immigrant will voice fears about the large number of migrants changing our culture and depressing our wages etc etc, which are arguments against migrants in general.

    Beyond this, doing something illegal doesn't make you not a human. If anything, we should treat illegal immigrants as we do other criminals.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Beyond this, doing something illegal doesn't make you not a human. If anything, we should treat illegal immigrants as we do other criminals.

    The interestign thing is, the way that we treat American criminals is different from how we treat foreign criminals.

    Deportation is very much in line with extradition, no?

    Evander on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    The essay was more an explanation for why we've always had the weird combination of being both an immigrant nation and a nation with a strong amount of anti-migrant sentiment. A lot of the people who say that they're just anti-illegal immigrant will voice fears about the large number of migrants changing our culture and depressing our wages etc etc, which are arguments against migrants in general.

    Beyond this, doing something illegal doesn't make you not a human. If anything, we should treat illegal immigrants as we do other criminals.

    Because they do, across all sectors. Talk to just about any engineer or computer programmer and ask them about the H1-B visa program.

    I'm not sure what you mean by your last line? We do treat them like any other criminal. Hell, they get treated better than most criminals. Most of the time they don't even get charged with illegal entry and get an Expedited Return, they get a Voluntary Return and a free busride back to the port of entry.

    So I'm kind of confused about your "doing something illegal doesn't make you not a human" line comes from? o_O

    legionofone on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I think you're getting confused by the dichotomy between how people talk about illegal aliens, and how we actually treat illegal aliens.

    Evander on
  • Options
    LieberkuhnLieberkuhn __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Ouch. You used wikipedia as a reference? Twice? Bad. Baaaddd.

    Lieberkuhn on
    While you eat, let's have a conversation about the nature of consent.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    a nation with a strong amount of anti-migrant sentiment.

    Compared to who with similar immigration trends?

    Quid on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I just hope Ethan's hands are okay from all that wringing. Someone send him some Jergens.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    VisionOfClarityVisionOfClarity Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    As an aside, ranchers tend to shoot at illegal aliens crossing because they're tired of having their property vandalized, robbed, broken into, and having their friends, family, and themselves assaulted and murdered. Not everyone coming across the line is some dude who just wants a job.

    And because shit like this has a lot of people nervous.

    VisionOfClarity on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    As an aside, ranchers tend to shoot at illegal aliens crossing because they're tired of having their property vandalized, robbed, broken into, and having their friends, family, and themselves assaulted and murdered. Not everyone coming across the line is some dude who just wants a job.

    And because shit like this has a lot of people nervous.

    Well, yeah, that happened right over in Douglas and the NM National Guard got activated because of it. Its a tragedy because apparently he was there to help and got shot for it.

    And of course there was the ambush and premeditated murder of Border Patrol Agent Rosas last year as well.

    People re-elect Sheriff Joe for a reason, and its not "urggghh dumb redneck republican tea baggers". The closer you get to the reality of what's going on at the border, the harder it is to keep those rose tinted glasses on about "undocumented migrant border crossers".

    legionofone on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I think you're getting confused by the dichotomy between how people talk about illegal aliens, and how we actually treat illegal aliens.

    Are you talking about me, or Ethan Smith up there? If its me, could you clarify?

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I think you're getting confused by the dichotomy between how people talk about illegal aliens, and how we actually treat illegal aliens.

    Oh yeah, the legal system strongly defines human rights as something that all human beings have. However because of how people talk about illegal immigrants, they then go and elect congressmen / pass referendums that strongly curtail the rights of illegal migrants, until they come to a court and the court strikes it down. This isn't entirely about my horrific concern about migration--I'm fairly certain that we're moving towards more and more rights being given to migrants (the SC just passed a decision where if you, as an attorney, tell an immigrant to plead guilty in a case that could get them deported because of lack of knowledge, that the case is thrown out). I'm just trying to give an overview of the situation from a human rights standpoint.

    @the wiki articles--Up until the last paragraph that's an essay for a class. Then I realized if I were to post it on a forum there I should give some idea of what policies we're following now.
    The closer you get to the reality of what's going on at the border, the harder it is to keep those rose tinted glasses on about "undocumented migrant border crossers".

    Is everyone coming north because of job opportunities? No. THe huge amount of inflation and corruption in North Mexico, as well as the urbanization of the area, are why Mexicans have become so much more mobile in the past 50 years. But the problems that those people were fleeing--drug lords, corruption, violence--are now starting to bleed over.

    In the end, the real reason we get so many immigrants has less to do with our economic situation or our tolerance then the shitty stuff going on south of the border. This doesn't change my suggestion that we open our borders more, but if you really want to get less illegal migrants, then you'll support Obama's economic and military aid to Mexico

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010


    Is everyone coming north because of job opportunities? No. THe huge amount of inflation and corruption in North Mexico, as well as the urbanization of the area, are why Mexicans have become so much more mobile in the past 50 years. But the problems that those people were fleeing--drug lords, corruption, violence--are now starting to bleed over.

    In the end, the real reason we get so many immigrants has less to do with our economic situation or our tolerance then the shitty stuff going on south of the border. This doesn't change my suggestion that we open our borders more, but if you really want to get less illegal migrants, then you'll support Obama's economic and military aid to Mexico

    They're also backpacking in drugs, illegal aliens from other countries, stolen merchandise, and on and on. But that's besides the point. Opening the borders isn't going to do anything other than bring more illegal aliens in the US to compete with an already overstressed US labor market.

    Mexico has more billionaires than any other country in the world. It also has a whole bunch of poor people, and the second biggest driving force behind its economy, other than oil, is remittances from the US. It is totally in their interest to continue to use the US to power their economy, as well as an escape valve for all their poor and undesirables. If they're heading al norte instead of staying and perhaps starting to rebel against the current government, well then they don't have to worry about making any real reforms.

    You want real reform to stop illegal aliens? You put a real fence across the border, like they have in San Diego. Its not going to stop em, but it will slow them down. Then you actually staff the Border Patrol, because right now the NYPD has more officers than the BP has agents. And then you actually prosecute the smugglers of humans and drugs instead of having the US Attorney's office decline prosecution on them most of the time.

    Of course, I've NEVER heard an open borders advocate ever stress greater enforcement or even acknowledge the realities of what's going on in the US nowadays, so I'm not holding my breath.

    And as an aside, do you have a cite or a quote on any of those laws that "take away rights from illegal aliens"?

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIRAIRA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187

    Also that fence that you mentioned kills 300 people a year because people still go through the desert.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIRAIRA
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187

    Also that fence that you mentioned kills 300 people a year because people still go through the desert.

    You mind pointing out where the IIRAIRA is unconstitutional? They didn't strike down the entire thing, just that you couldn't deport someone who pleaded guilty to a new deportable offense before the act was passed.

    And Prop 187 was never declared unconstitutional. Then Gov. Gray Davis simply refused to fight the appeals against the law, which is a whole different bag of fish then what you're suggesting.

    And no one is telling them to come through the desert. Stop trying to appeal to emotion and get your facts in order. Try actually reading the wiki articles you're linking to, for example.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    And Prop 187 was never declared unconstitutional.
    Yes, it was declared unconstitutional. Just because the highest court doesn't say it isn't constitutional due to it not going all the way up there doesn't mean the federal court that did declare it unconstitutional doesn't count.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    And Prop 187 was never declared unconstitutional.
    Yes, it was declared unconstitutional. Just because the highest court doesn't say it isn't constitutional due to it not going all the way up there doesn't mean the federal court that did declare it unconstitutional doesn't count.

    I should have said "unconstitutional on the basis of stripping away human rights". You're right, of course.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    And Prop 187 was never declared unconstitutional.
    Yes, it was declared unconstitutional. Just because the highest court doesn't say it isn't constitutional due to it not going all the way up there doesn't mean the federal court that did declare it unconstitutional doesn't count.

    I should have said "unconstitutional on the basis of stripping away human rights". You're right, of course.

    EDIT: Of course, this is the same Ninth Circus that had to be told repeatedly by the Supreme Court to accept the totality of the evidence provided. I'm curious as to what would have happened if the Supreme Court had heard this case, instead of Gray Davis dropping it to pander to certain lobbies.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    vaultdweller0013vaultdweller0013 Registered User regular
    edited April 2010


    Is everyone coming north because of job opportunities? No. THe huge amount of inflation and corruption in North Mexico, as well as the urbanization of the area, are why Mexicans have become so much more mobile in the past 50 years. But the problems that those people were fleeing--drug lords, corruption, violence--are now starting to bleed over.

    In the end, the real reason we get so many immigrants has less to do with our economic situation or our tolerance then the shitty stuff going on south of the border. This doesn't change my suggestion that we open our borders more, but if you really want to get less illegal migrants, then you'll support Obama's economic and military aid to Mexico

    They're also backpacking in drugs, illegal aliens from other countries, stolen merchandise, and on and on. But that's besides the point. Opening the borders isn't going to do anything other than bring more illegal aliens in the US to compete with an already overstressed US labor market.

    Mexico has more billionaires than any other country in the world. It also has a whole bunch of poor people, and the second biggest driving force behind its economy, other than oil, is remittances from the US. It is totally in their interest to continue to use the US to power their economy, as well as an escape valve for all their poor and undesirables. If they're heading al norte instead of staying and perhaps starting to rebel against the current government, well then they don't have to worry about making any real reforms.

    You want real reform to stop illegal aliens? You put a real fence across the border, like they have in San Diego. Its not going to stop em, but it will slow them down. Then you actually staff the Border Patrol, because right now the NYPD has more officers than the BP has agents. And then you actually prosecute the smugglers of humans and drugs instead of having the US Attorney's office decline prosecution on them most of the time.

    Of course, I've NEVER heard an open borders advocate ever stress greater enforcement or even acknowledge the realities of what's going on in the US nowadays, so I'm not holding my breath.

    And as an aside, do you have a cite or a quote on any of those laws that "take away rights from illegal aliens"?

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

    If you are willing to make the claim in red, it pretty much shows you do not understand the situation.

    vaultdweller0013 on
  • Options
    Cedar BrownCedar Brown Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know much about the situation down there. What human rights are being denied to illegal immigrants?

    Cedar Brown on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010


    Is everyone coming north because of job opportunities? No. THe huge amount of inflation and corruption in North Mexico, as well as the urbanization of the area, are why Mexicans have become so much more mobile in the past 50 years. But the problems that those people were fleeing--drug lords, corruption, violence--are now starting to bleed over.

    In the end, the real reason we get so many immigrants has less to do with our economic situation or our tolerance then the shitty stuff going on south of the border. This doesn't change my suggestion that we open our borders more, but if you really want to get less illegal migrants, then you'll support Obama's economic and military aid to Mexico

    They're also backpacking in drugs, illegal aliens from other countries, stolen merchandise, and on and on. But that's besides the point. Opening the borders isn't going to do anything other than bring more illegal aliens in the US to compete with an already overstressed US labor market.

    Mexico has more billionaires than any other country in the world. It also has a whole bunch of poor people, and the second biggest driving force behind its economy, other than oil, is remittances from the US. It is totally in their interest to continue to use the US to power their economy, as well as an escape valve for all their poor and undesirables. If they're heading al norte instead of staying and perhaps starting to rebel against the current government, well then they don't have to worry about making any real reforms.

    You want real reform to stop illegal aliens? You put a real fence across the border, like they have in San Diego. Its not going to stop em, but it will slow them down. Then you actually staff the Border Patrol, because right now the NYPD has more officers than the BP has agents. And then you actually prosecute the smugglers of humans and drugs instead of having the US Attorney's office decline prosecution on them most of the time.

    Of course, I've NEVER heard an open borders advocate ever stress greater enforcement or even acknowledge the realities of what's going on in the US nowadays, so I'm not holding my breath.

    And as an aside, do you have a cite or a quote on any of those laws that "take away rights from illegal aliens"?

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

    If you are willing to make the claim in red, it pretty much shows you do not understand the situation.

    I'm including narco billionaires in there as well. Regardless, my numbers may be a bit off, but I'm not perfect here.

    However, to highlight one claim in red in that entire paragraph block and then claim I don't understand the "situation" is a little stupid. What is the situation? Mexican remittances? The fact that land reform is desperately needed? The pervasive corruption that's culturally abetted on all levels of Mexican society?

    If you're going to make an argument, make an argument. Don't wiki-snipe. Stop being a silly goose.
    I don't know much about the situation down there. What human rights are being denied to illegal immigrants?

    22 or so posts in and that question still hasn't been answered.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Some advice: it's weird to act like the Republican party of the 20s and the one of the 80s are even remotely similar on the issue of immigration. You're better off leaving out that line instead of having it seem really obvious that you're making an unsupportable claim.

    Saying that anti-immigrant sentiment has been largely conservative is one thing. But many consider the modern day Republicans to be 'at fault' for the current immigration system -- in that they tacitly pursued lax employment policies that encouraged illegal immigration while 'cracking down' in a largely unproductive and symbolic way to give some red meat to the base.

    Labeling the entire party as 'anti-migrant' doesn't make sense when the business wing of the GOP is largely responsible for the spikes we saw over the last 20 years or so. Schizophrenic, yes -- monolithic, no.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    “Civem Romanum Sum” was a very powerful phrase in the late Roman Empire, in fact it was this precise phrase that made Cicero’s first case. It was over the corruption of the governor of Sicily, and the climax of the case was the unlawful punishment of a Roman citizen who declared his citizenship, for in the Roman Republic, it was the citizens who had legal rights, while noncitizens were barely more than slaves, and often were slaves. The American constitution, and American political culture in general is highly influenced by two major political traditions—the Republicanism and law system of Rome and the anti-monarchism of the Enlightenment. Coming out of this tradition, there is a marked lack of rights given specifically to all human beings, and those that are given are limitations of the state and not enfranchisements.
    You really misrepresent what Civem Romanum Sum is about. While Roman Citizens did enjoy much greater rights than non citizens, the importance of the phrase today is that a government is suppose to protect it citizens from injustice in foreign countries, as well as domestically.
    This original tradition came up relatively few times after the Civil War, after which the 13th and 14th amendments attempted to spread the rights to all American citizens. However, the tradition has come back with a vengeance now that the noncitizen population is an issue, almost to the degree that the second tradition—that the state cannot infringe upon certain inherent rights—is being canceled out. Why is that? Is it because the Roman tradition is so inherently authoritarian that even the use of it in American politics pollutes it, or is it something more?
    Should probably show some right infringements somewhere in this thing, and one rhetorical question is enough, no need for 3.
    Now, anti-immigrant sentiment is not a purely American phenomenon—no people can lay singular claim to xenophobia. Immigrants are a worldwide human rights issue, because human rights are traditionally protected (to whatever degree) by states and the legal systems of states. These legal systems tend to be citizen oriented, following in the ancient Roman tradition. Beyond this, non-legal immigrants are doubly excluded from systems that would protect their rights, for they are outsiders in their community and outsiders in their polity. This further enrages the ‘native’ populace by creating an Other which (generally) cannot legally strike back against any rights violations. Beyond this, the presence of an Other which cannot represent itself explains the rise of far rightist and nationalist parties in Europe—because the anti-migrant sentiment is enflamed by the rising unemployment in sectors where people are outcompeted by immigrants, but pro-migrant sentiment is muted because the migrants cannot vote.

    But America does not have a multi-party system of government, and such fringe elements have a far harder time gaining control over the political dialogue. Perhaps the radicalization resulting from this would explain incidents like ranchers shooting at border crossers with high-powered rifles [1], but I would suggest another large reason for historical anti-immigrant sentiment—that the American economy is addicted to cheap labor and that we are ashamed of it.
    As someone else stated stop switching between immigrant, illegal immigrant, and migrant, they mean different things. Also non-legal isn't the correct word there anyways, my advice on making a will is nonlegal(since I am not a lawyer), me stealing your car is illegal(since it violates a law). Also human rights of legal and illegal immigrants are fully protected in almost every country worth mention. Pretty sure I can't just kill a couple of illegal immigrants with out the cops coming after me.
    Also we have a multi-party system, and how does not having one(?) generate ranchers shooting trespassers(see what I did there???).
    The Constitution was written by men who were highly aware of Roman political philosophy, one that gave almost all of its rights to citizens. One could say that it was the tradition that caused this legal choice, but I would suggest that it was because the circumstances were similar. Slavery was an issue that cancelled out entirely the question of Human Rights—because giving all ‘human beings’ rights opens the precedent of giving slaves rights, something which, economically, was not possible. America, as a primarily financial and agricultural power during the antebellum period, needed slaves for a large degree of its output. The disgust that came out of this created the basis of the 19th century Republican party—the concept of “Free Labor” as opposed to wage slavery or slave labor.

    This ideal of the Republican Party representing the ideals of free farmers influenced its position on immigration greatly, and, after the Civil War made slavery a very easy way to score rhetorical points, changed the kind of dialogue that occurred over immigration. The Page Act, named for the GOP congressman who introduced it, was the first anti-immigration bill passed, and it was so passed because of the perception of Chinese women as possible sex slaves or “prostitutes” [2]. This Act set a precedent for the Republican Party, as the party of the little man trying to get by, and of the freedman, to also be the party of anti-immigrant sentiment being passed through legislature. This apparent contradiction becomes easier to understand when one connects that the demographics of freedmen and small farmers are likely to compete with migrants, and that the plank of ‘free labor’ comes in contradiction with what was perceived as unfairly cheap migrant labor.

    As a result of this situation, the most sweeping anti-immigration laws in the 1920’s and 80’s were passed under Republican presidents. But the addiction that explains the constant pressure for anti-migrant sentiment is also why real anti-immigrant laws will not be passed, because even if it was plausible, no one is incentivized to totally end the flow of illegal immigrants into America. The politicians would lose the support of angered anti-immigrants, and it would be a massive blow to the American economy, of a magnitude of roughly 10 billion dollars a year [3]. This means that those who vote—the populace, the roving masses, the people who are worked up by the anti-migrant rhetoric—will only become more and more enraged as time goes on, until a conclusion is reached.
    As pointed out above, trying to link a political party to a cause like this through 140+ years of history is intellectually lazy way for you to share your party leanings(look which party filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and therefor is against minorities). I'm going to hazard a guess and assume that all the D-voting union workers aren't huge fans of illegal immigration either, and 10b to the entire US economy is nothing.
    Recently there have been several policy suggestions regarding immigrants. There has been a fence placed over the easy to cross areas of the US-Mexican border, which has funnelled migrants through a blazing desert. It has been estimated that more than 350 people a year attempting to cross this border [4], and this hasn't slowed the migration. In another half measure, the guest worker program has been expanded greatly in recent years. However because the guest workers can only work 1 job in the 9-18 months they are in the country for, labor law violations are rife--many employers bring in migrants with no intent on paying them [5]. This, along with the strengthening of ICE (the governmental group that deports people) have made the lives of migrants far worse, and have violated their human rights far more, without slowing the level of migration into the US. Thus, with the failures of the half-way measures I have described, and with the trend in human rights and the economic gains, the only actual conclusion I can see is an opening of US borders.
    The article you cite from wiki has [citation needed] near all the shit regarding the fence. Referring to ICE as "the governmental group that deports people" is weasel word bullshit, and the reason they have been expanded has little to do with illegal immigrants. Making the life of criminals harder is something an effective government does, you haven't pointed out any human rights violations, and anyone with a 5th grade education can probably infer that if something becomes more difficult and dangerous with a lower reward, fewer people are going to try and do it.

    That and to top it all off your conclusion is logically specious:
    Given their track record horrible performance, the government tax savings, and high crime rates, the only conclusion I can see(The one I had before I started researching/writing this) is the abolishment of the public school system in large US cities.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know much about the situation down there. What human rights are being denied to illegal immigrants?

    1-Getting shot at by ranchers. This was before the drug war was a thing, mind you. There is a right to life there which we are rather callously ignoring, especially by the walls which furrow people into areas which aren't suitible for human life. You can say that they're criminals, you can say that when a person makes the rational choice to illegally cross the border they give up their rights, but the walls weren't made to stop immigration, they were made to make it harder.
    2-Multiple times laws like proposition 187 have been passed barring illegals from using public goods even though they often pay into them.
    3-The position of being a guest worker in this country violates several economic rights, like the right to work (which includes the ability to quit and find another job), and the right to freedom of movement (you cannot in many cases leave the work area, like as long as you're working there).
    4-Laws have been passed forbidding corners from being used as a place to pick up day laborers in a lot of place (mentioned in passing in this article). This violates the right to free assembly but also the 14th ammendment.

    and legionofone, even though I have never once mentioned constitutionality, but the 14th ammendment says that all people within American jurisdiction are given equal protection under the law. This includes people who are not citizens, and people who are here illegally. But I've been talking about Human Rights, not constitutionality, and I don't know why you think bringing it up helps your argument.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know much about the situation down there. What human rights are being denied to illegal immigrants?

    1-Getting shot at by ranchers. This was before the drug war was a thing, mind you. There is a right to life there which we are rather callously ignoring, especially by the walls which furrow people into areas which aren't suitible for human life. You can say that they're criminals, you can say that when a person makes the rational choice to illegally cross the border they give up their rights, but the walls weren't made to stop immigration, they were made to make it harder.
    2-Multiple times laws like proposition 187 have been passed barring illegals from using public goods even though they often pay into them.
    3-The position of being a guest worker in this country violates several economic rights, like the right to work (which includes the ability to quit and find another job), and the right to freedom of movement (you cannot in many cases leave the work area, like as long as you're working there).
    4-Laws have been passed forbidding corners from being used as a place to pick up day laborers in a lot of place (mentioned in passing in this article). This violates the right to free assembly but also the 14th ammendment.

    and legionofone, even though I have never once mentioned constitutionality, but the 14th ammendment says that all people within American jurisdiction are given equal protection under the law. This includes people who are not citizens, and people who are here illegally. But I've been talking about Human Rights, not constitutionality, and I don't know why you think bringing it up helps your argument.

    1) Because illegal aliens have been breaking into the houses of ranchers for a while now. And when did the drug war "start" on the SW? Because people have been getting killed well since the beginning of the 20th century over smuggling illegal drugs. So give me some hard facts here. And I guess you're convieniently ignoring the rancher that was killed trying to help an illegal alien last month as well over in Douglas, Arizona.

    2) Again, appeal to emotion. They're here ILLEGALLY. And they take out FAR more than they put in in ER visits, public schooling, car crashes, and money taken out of the local economy and sent down to Mexico as a remittance.

    3) So get rid of the guest worker program and give the jobs to citizens and residents? What is your solution here then?

    4) Drug dealers also gather at corners. Are their 14th amendment rights being violated when they get rousted by the cops? You seem to be unable to wrap your head around a key point here, which is that they are committing a crime by being present in the US illegally. You don't get a free pass to threaten to kill someone because you have a 1st Amendment right.

    Futhermore, the claim about "human rights over constitutionality" is a pretty common claim of open border advocates. However, there is nothing about their human rights being violated, except apparently in your mind and the other open border advocates.

    I gurantee you, go down to Mexico and try to claim the same "human rights" that illegal aliens enjoy up here. See how long it takes before you get tossed into a Mexican jail. Read about how Mexico treats the illegal aliens from Guatemala and Honduras on its southern border, and then make your bold assertions about someone's rights being violated by Customs and Border Protection.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You really misrepresent what Civem Romanum Sum is about. While Roman Citizens did enjoy much greater rights than non citizens, the importance of the phrase today is that a government is suppose to protect it citizens from injustice in foreign countries, as well as domestically.

    However the background of the case was that the person was treated like a slave--he was tortured etc. Slaves, like illegal immigrants, are in the awkward position of having no one defending their rights.

    Should probably show some right infringements somewhere in this thing, and one rhetorical question is enough, no need for 3.

    Truth, sorry about that.
    As someone else stated stop switching between immigrant, illegal immigrant, and migrant, they mean different things. Also non-legal isn't the correct word there anyways, my advice on making a will is nonlegal(since I am not a lawyer), me stealing your car is illegal(since it violates a law). Also human rights of legal and illegal immigrants are fully protected in almost every country worth mention. Pretty sure I can't just kill a couple of illegal immigrants with out the cops coming after me.
    Also we have a multi-party system, and how does not having one(?) generate ranchers shooting trespassers(see what I did there???).

    The switch between migrant and immigrant actually does mean the same thing. An immigrant is a migrant who is coming into your country. I tend to use migrant in the paper because it's a far more neutral term--the example I use for misuse of immigrant and emmigrant was a history text on Latin American history. Nearly every time the author referred to Europeans he said emmigrants, but when he talked about people coming to the US he used Immigrants. See the difference there?

    The non-versus il is valid though.

    The human rights are protected by the courts, that was a point I should have made, but I was looking at the political culture of the US, and the anti-illegal immigrant sentiment in the US, and how that affects their rights.

    As pointed out above, trying to link a political party to a cause like this through 140+ years of history is intellectually lazy way for you to share your party leanings(look which party filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and therefor is against minorities). I'm going to hazard a guess and assume that all the D-voting union workers aren't huge fans of illegal immigration either, and 10b to the entire US economy is nothing.

    Yet again, I'm looking at political culture and the rise of anti-immigrant (and now anti-illegal immigrant) sentiment. I should have mentioned the Southern democrats and the Populists, but the anti-Chinese legislature was pushed through by Republicans, and talking about the democrats in the 1800's is harder--the split between the Northern democrats and the Southern ones is a very wide split.

    I admit though that I shouldn't have connected Reagan to this, I should have instead stopped at the 50's, when we stopped a lot of legal migration into here from most of the world (with the exception of the Cubans), and then fast forwarded to the 80's when Reagan gave amnesty to many immigrants here while simueltaneously making it harder for new immigrants to attain citizenship.

    The article you cite from wiki has [citation needed] near all the shit regarding the fence. Referring to ICE as "the governmental group that deports people" is weasel word bullshit, and the reason they have been expanded has little to do with illegal immigrants. Making the life of criminals harder is something an effective government does, you haven't pointed out any human rights violations, and anyone with a 5th grade education can probably infer that if something becomes more difficult and dangerous with a lower reward, fewer people are going to try and do it.

    And yet we still got 800,000 immigrants per year in the early 2000's even with all of the laws we placed against them. In fact the only thing that slowed the rate of immigrants into our country was the declining economy.
    That and to top it all off your conclusion is logically specious:
    Given their track record horrible performance, the government tax savings, and high crime rates, the only conclusion I can see(The one I had before I started researching/writing this) is the abolishment of the public school system in large US cities.

    Actually I wanted to connect Roman and US political culture at the beginning of the essay and I only realized in the second paragraph that the reason for the connection was more likely the circumstances then the tradition itself. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your reducio ad absurdum.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    1) Because illegal aliens have been breaking into the houses of ranchers for a while now. And when did the drug war "start" on the SW? Because people have been getting killed well since the beginning of the 20th century over smuggling illegal drugs. So give me some hard facts here. And I guess you're convieniently ignoring the rancher that was killed trying to help an illegal alien last month as well over in Douglas, Arizona.

    Because the killings of migrants happened first, but I suppose that the moment you cross the border it's ok if you get shot. The rancher getting killed was a human rights violation too, but that doesn't excuse randomly shooting at people.
    2) Again, appeal to emotion. They're here ILLEGALLY. And they take out FAR more than they put in in ER visits, public schooling, car crashes, and money taken out of the local economy and sent down to Mexico as a remittance.

    Therefore they are not permitted the services that they pay for.
    3) So get rid of the guest worker program and give the jobs to citizens and residents? What is your solution here then?

    Either to unionize the guest worker program, which is being suggested in congress
    4) Drug dealers also gather at corners. Are their 14th amendment rights being violated when they get rousted by the cops? You seem to be unable to wrap your head around a key point here, which is that they are committing a crime by being present in the US illegally. You don't get a free pass to threaten to kill someone because you have a 1st Amendment right.

    If you said that black people can't gather at corners then yeah that would be violating their 14th ammendment rights. Beyond that, no matter what you do, you still have your 14th ammendment rights. Your appeal to emotions
    Futhermore, the claim about "human rights over constitutionality" is a pretty common claim of open border advocates. However, there is nothing about their human rights being violated, except apparently in your mind and the other open border advocates.

    Getting killed is a human rights violation. Being denied the ability to assemble is a human rights violation.
    I gurantee you, go down to Mexico and try to claim the same "human rights" that illegal aliens enjoy up here. See how long it takes before you get tossed into a Mexican jail. Read about how Mexico treats the illegal aliens from Guatemala and Honduras on its southern border, and then make your bold assertions about someone's rights being violated by Customs and Border Protection.

    Man, you think our healthcare system is fucked up? I'll take you to the Congo. Look at the diseases and lack of doctors there and that clearly shows that our healthcare system is alright.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010

    Therefore they are not permitted the services that they pay for.

    Because they don't pay into them. We've gone over this.
    Either to unionize the guest worker program, which is being suggested in congress

    Or get rid of said guest worker program when our real unemployment is at 20%.
    If you said that black people can't gather at corners then yeah that would be violating their 14th ammendment rights. Beyond that, no matter what you do, you still have your 14th ammendment rights. Your appeal to emotions

    Uh not if you're gathering to seek work which is ILLEGAL because you are hear ILLEGALLY. You're trying to turn this into a race issue when its not. If Canadians were standing on the street corners looking for work they'd be getting raided too. Furthermore, do you even know what an appeal to emotion is? I'm not the one making half ass assumptions and wringing his hands while throwing around different terms interchangibly here, you silliest goose.

    Getting killed is a human rights violation. Being denied the ability to assemble is a human rights violation.

    And the people who are shooting them, if they're doing it out of cold blood, are being prosecuted for murder. You do not have a right to assemble in order to commit a crime. No one is organizing "illegal alien hunts", except maybe in your own mind. This is not a game of tag - there are no "safe zones" where you get to commit crimes and not get arrested for it.
    Man, you think our healthcare system is fucked up? I'll take you to the Congo. Look at the diseases and lack of doctors there and that clearly shows that our healthcare system is alright.

    I'm not the kid making retarded assumptions in a badly written paper about something he knows nothing about. The way we treat the illegal aliens is pretty alright all things considered.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Because they don't pay into them. We've gone over this.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html
    Or get rid of said guest worker program when our real unemployment is at 20%.

    You missed the point I made about how many orchards would go bankrupt without cheap labor. But fuck those guys am I right?
    Uh not if you're gathering to seek work which is ILLEGAL because you are hear ILLEGALLY. You're trying to turn this into a race issue when its not. If Canadians were standing on the street corners looking for work they'd be getting raided too. Furthermore, do you even know what an appeal to emotion is? I'm not the one making half ass assumptions and wringing his hands while throwing around different terms interchangibly here, you silliest goose.

    And you're starting to sound like a silly goose yourself dude. I mean I realize that you don't seem to like this thread but the inflammatory language here is probably going to get this thread locked. Beyond this, yet again, 14th Ammendment means that all of the rights in the bill of rights are given to everyone in the jurisdiction of America. Even if you're doing something illegal, because guess what, we presume innocence.
    And the people who are shooting them, if they're doing it out of cold blood, are being prosecuted for murder. You do not have a right to assemble in order to commit a crime. No one is organizing "illegal alien hunts", except maybe in your own mind. This is not a game of tag - there are no "safe zones" where you get to commit crimes and not get arrested for it.

    You have the right to assemble period. If you commit a crime and are caught then there you go, but taking people's right to assembly away because they're going to do illegal shit with it just screams authoritarianism at me.
    I'm not the kid making retarded assumptions in a badly written paper about something he knows nothing about. The way we treat the illegal aliens is pretty alright all things considered.

    Therefore, there is no reason to treat them better.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I don't know much about the situation down there. What human rights are being denied to illegal immigrants?

    1-Getting shot at by ranchers. This was before the drug war was a thing, mind you. There is a right to life there which we are rather callously ignoring, especially by the walls which furrow people into areas which aren't suitible for human life. You can say that they're criminals, you can say that when a person makes the rational choice to illegally cross the border they give up their rights, but the walls weren't made to stop immigration, they were made to make it harder.
    2-Multiple times laws like proposition 187 have been passed barring illegals from using public goods even though they often pay into them.
    3-The position of being a guest worker in this country violates several economic rights, like the right to work (which includes the ability to quit and find another job), and the right to freedom of movement (you cannot in many cases leave the work area, like as long as you're working there).
    4-Laws have been passed forbidding corners from being used as a place to pick up day laborers in a lot of place (mentioned in passing in this article). This violates the right to free assembly but also the 14th ammendment.

    and legionofone, even though I have never once mentioned constitutionality, but the 14th ammendment says that all people within American jurisdiction are given equal protection under the law. This includes people who are not citizens, and people who are here illegally. But I've been talking about Human Rights, not constitutionality, and I don't know why you think bringing it up helps your argument.

    1 No shit the wall is there to make it harder. You can't make an impenetrable wall, see Berlin or China. By making it harder fewer people will attempt it, thats how deterrents work. A Sovereign country has the right to bar entry.
    2 So Georgia should have to provide Hope scholarships to kids from Wyoming? A tax payer service can be restricted to the people who pay taxes for it.
    3) By accepting the guest worker visa, they accept the conditions that come with it. They have no right of entry into the country, and they can nullify the visa and leave at any time they wish. Just like my landlord can evict me if I stop paying rent, or play my music too load too often, or do any of the 50 other things my lease says I agree not to do.
    4) Corners are public property, so commerce(which is subject to tons of restrictions in general) on them can be limited. People walk down the middle of the street where I live trying to sell shit to people at red lights, I'm amazed they haven't all been struck and killed yet. Would a don't sell shit in the middle of the street law be a rights violation?

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

    http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134

    http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

    All pretty much point to the same conclusion: There's a definite cost associated with illegal aliens.

    And then there is this:

    http://www.greenvilleonline.com/print/article/20100402/NEWS/304020019/10-illegal-aliens-in-S.C.-admit-to-bilking-IRS-out-of-13-million

    Your article only addresses the fact that illegal aliens pay into Social Security, and completely ignores the net cost involved.

    You missed the point I made about how many orchards would go bankrupt without cheap labor. But fuck those guys am I right?

    Ah. That old saw about "lazy americans". I see. The "point" you made is a soundbite by entrenched farming interests who survive on cheap illegal labor.
    And you're starting to sound like a silly goose yourself dude. I mean I realize that you don't seem to like this thread but the inflammatory language here is probably going to get this thread locked. Beyond this, yet again, 14th Ammendment means that all of the rights in the bill of rights are given to everyone in the jurisdiction of America. Even if you're doing something illegal, because guess what, we presume innocence.

    No, not really. I'm not the one who makes a spurious conclusion about "open borders" and then tries weakly to defend it. And its probably not going to get locked - I'm just going to get tired of arguing with someone so obtuse and walk away from it.

    Obviously you have no clue how the legal system works. Its not violating your 14th amendment right for someone to come up to a group of obvious day laborers and start talking to them and then trying to determine citizenship and alienage. Sorry.

    You have the right to assemble period. If you commit a crime and are caught then there you go, but taking people's right to assembly away because they're going to do illegal shit with it just screams authoritarianism at me.

    They're not taking anyone's "right to assemble" away. Their very presence in the United States is a crime. They're arresting them for committing a crime. Wrap your head around that. You can cry tyrant hitler fascism all you want, but it doesn't change the way the law works.
    Therefore, there is no reason to treat them better.

    Your "better" is amnesty. You've offered nothing other than opening the border letting anyone who wants in, in, and ignoring the larger issues behind it all. That's not an acceptable rationale at all.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Uh not if you're gathering to seek work which is ILLEGAL because you are hear ILLEGALLY. You're trying to turn this into a race issue when its not. If Canadians were standing on the street corners looking for work they'd be getting raided too. Furthermore, do you even know what an appeal to emotion is? I'm not the one making half ass assumptions and wringing his hands while throwing around different terms interchangibly here, you silliest goose.

    And you're starting to sound like a silly goose yourself dude. I mean I realize that you don't seem to like this thread but the inflammatory language here is probably going to get this thread locked. Beyond this, yet again, 14th Ammendment means that all of the rights in the bill of rights are given to everyone in the jurisdiction of America. Even if you're doing something illegal, because guess what, we presume innocence.
    You don't understand the 14th amendment all that well. Since the privilege and immunities clause got more or less killed in the 1800s the only part that applies to this kind of stuff is the due process clause. So while illegal immigrants can't be taken to prison and summarily executed, they aren't granted access to most government services. Them getting arrested by the police for some minor crime, being unable to prove their residency status(because they are here illegally), and then being deported after receiving a hearing is due process.
    And the people who are shooting them, if they're doing it out of cold blood, are being prosecuted for murder. You do not have a right to assemble in order to commit a crime. No one is organizing "illegal alien hunts", except maybe in your own mind. This is not a game of tag - there are no "safe zones" where you get to commit crimes and not get arrested for it.

    You have the right to assemble period. If you commit a crime and are caught then there you go, but taking people's right to assembly away because they're going to do illegal shit with it just screams authoritarianism at me.
    They are constantly committing a crime. Its like assembling on your neighbors front lawn, your assembly is the crime, because you aren't spose to be there.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There is nothing less appealing than 'businesses whose model requires sub-minimum wage workers will go under DON'T U CARE' as an argument.

    Every company shitty enough to rely on illegals is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Or will claim to be, if they're not.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010

    I need to get to work, so I'm going to deal with this part later.
    Ah. That old saw about "lazy americans". I see. The "point" you made is a soundbite by entrenched farming interests who survive on cheap illegal labor.

    Wait what? How am I making that argument at all? I'm saying that our minimum wage laws would make it difficult for a lot of companies to survive if they suddenly were to hire Americans. That's messed up and I disagree with it, but since you're talking about economic nessesity (20% real unemployment or whatever), getting Americans to do farm work en masse isn't the way to fix unemployment.
    Obviously you have no clue how the legal system works. Its not violating your 14th amendment right for someone to come up to a group of obvious day laborers and start talking to them and then trying to determine citizenship and alienage. Sorry.

    They're not taking anyone's "right to assemble" away. Their very presence in the United States is a crime. They're arresting them for committing a crime. Wrap your head around that. You can cry tyrant hitler fascism all you want, but it doesn't change the way the law works.

    You don't know, when you look at a group of Hispanics on a day laborer corner, if they're illegal or not. Even if you ask someone to show you their ID they'll likely have a fake ID, so you don't know. Beyond that, barring a corner from use by day laborers means that since you don't know if they are illegal aliens or not, if a city were to bar citizens are not only violating the rights of the illegal immigrants, you're violating the rights of US citizens.

    Also I like that I'm the obtuse one, when you've been the one that's insulted me in every post you've made in this thread.
    Your "better" is amnesty. You've offered nothing other than opening the border letting anyone who wants in, in, and ignoring the larger issues behind it all. That's not an acceptable rationale at all.

    And I suggested unionizing guest work programs, and I've been saying that we should treat illegal immigrants (or immigrants, period) the same, in courts, as we treat American citizens.

    You don't understand the 14th amendment all that well. Since the privilege and immunities clause got more or less killed in the 1800s the only part that applies to this kind of stuff is the due process clause. So while illegal immigrants can't be taken to prison and summarily executed, they aren't granted access to most government services. Them getting arrested by the police for some minor crime, being unable to prove their residency status(because they are here illegally), and then being deported after receiving a hearing is due process.
    They are not getting deported after receiving a hearing--there are cases where people are deported the moment they are identified as an illegal, without a trial. Beyond that, we have a different system for the way we try immigrants.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You don't understand the 14th amendment all that well. Since the privilege and immunities clause got more or less killed in the 1800s the only part that applies to this kind of stuff is the due process clause. So while illegal immigrants can't be taken to prison and summarily executed, they aren't granted access to most government services. Them getting arrested by the police for some minor crime, being unable to prove their residency status(because they are here illegally), and then being deported after receiving a hearing is due process.
    They are not getting deported after receiving a hearing--there are cases where people are deported the moment they are identified as an illegal, without a trial. Beyond that, we have a different system for the way we try immigrants.

    While I think the drug charges are retarded, the US's insane drug policy is an entirely different issue. Is it a poor decision to deport him, yes, but that doesn't make it a violation of his rights to be deported. He, a citizen of another country, committed a crime(twice) while in the US. Are you seriously arguing that foreign criminals should be granted unfettered access to the US? Of course the system is different, since you can't deport US citizens(that would be an actual human rights violation), there is no system to deport US citizens.
    Article 13
    Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country.
    There is no issue of a jury trial because he admitted guilt. He's basically in the sentencing portion of the 'trial', which is pure judge work. Contrary to your point, the article proves the due process he is receiving, as he(a non-citizen) is having an appeal heard before SCOTUS.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Not a big fan of necromancy, but this looked like the most appropriate place without starting a new thread:

    Arizona Passes Strict New Immigration Enforcement Protocols
    Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

    It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.

    Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.



    Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"


    Regardless of my feelings on the issue, I would love to have the chance to remind Mr. Rubio that Arizona's unemployment rate currently stands at almost 10%, meaning that one in ten legal residents of Arizona are in need of work.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Isn't farm work usually not good temporary work in the sense that it is fairly hard to do both the farm work and looking for a job at the same time? Recessions are also temporary while this law will at least be a pain in the ass to remove.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Not a big fan of necromancy, but this looked like the most appropriate place without starting a new thread:

    Arizona Passes Strict New Immigration Enforcement Protocols
    Arizona lawmakers on Tuesday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation.

    It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal.

    Under the measure, passed Tuesday by Arizona's lower house, after being passed earlier by the state Senate, foreign nationals are required to carry proof of legal residency.



    Joe Rubio, lead organizer for Valley Interfaith Project, a Phoenix-based advocacy group, calling it "an economic train wreck." He added that "Arizona's economic recovery will lag way behind the country's if we keep chasing away our workforce. Where do the legislators think business will find workers?"


    Regardless of my feelings on the issue, I would love to have the chance to remind Mr. Rubio that Arizona's unemployment rate currently stands at almost 10%, meaning that one in ten legal residents of Arizona are in need of work.


    Isn't a "Show me your papers" law unconstitutional?
    Edit: As a matter of fact, don't they have the right to plead the fifth ammendment?

    override367 on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Isn't farm work usually not good temporary work in the sense that it is fairly hard to do both the farm work and looking for a job at the same time? Recessions are also temporary while this law will at least be a pain in the ass to remove.

    Aren't there a lot of shitty full-time temp jobs that make it hard to look for better work?

    Atomika on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Isn't farm work usually not good temporary work in the sense that it is fairly hard to do both the farm work and looking for a job at the same time? Recessions are also temporary while this law will at least be a pain in the ass to remove.

    Aren't there a lot of shitty full-time temp jobs that make it hard to look for better work?

    You tend to at least be very close to where potential jobs might be found.

    Couscous on
Sign In or Register to comment.