Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

1246736

Posts

  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    You're the one who threw the big fit about the idea that calling them "illegal" was wrong. If you want, you can go look at it back on page 3 or 4 if you forgot about it already.
    I'm guessing you didn't read it. There's nothing wrong with calling them illegal, and never once did I ever say it was wrong to do so. I've never argued for calling them "undocumented" or anything else wishy-washy. Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? You've never even tried to respond to what I did say.
    I don't want to debate with you because your posts are pretty much big quote trees where nothing gets resolved except you acting like a sophist and arguing over semantics whenever someone tries to nail you down on a point.
    You said that open borders would lead to more illegal immigration. Please explain how. This is not a big quote tree, not sophistry, not semantics. A simple request for you to explain something you wrote. That is the point I'm trying to nail down.

    Yar on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    TechBoy wrote: »

    Honestly, I don't. Isn't lower cost labor better for all because then we get goods and services cheaper? Isn't that why we offshore all our manufacturing to China?

    How do you think they get those costs? Its not simply "oh we ship overseas so our costs are lower". You have sixteen hour to twenty hour days, forced abortions, no sick time, and child labor in those overseas factories so you can get a five dollar shirt made in a Vietamese factory for Wal Mart. And those conditions become even more inhumane when you have someone who says "I can make those shirts at .02 instead at .04!" over in Laos or Bangladesh.

    That's a bit OT, but it gives you a picture of how "lower costs for goods" aren't always the panacea some people would like you to think they are.
    I acknowledge that there are Americans who do lose their jobs due to undercutting by Mexican workers, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that these people can't find work in some other occupation or that their life's prospects are somehow irrevocably damaged. I mean job loss happens all the time due to plenty of reasons that aren't immigration related, to expect some kind of special rule for job loss due to immigration is kind of silly.

    Where do you suggest they go then? Manufacturing? Farming? Why do you feel that this country owes Mexican citizens a great debt than its own citizens?

    Housing is a pretty good example of this. It used to be that housing was a good trade and could set you up for a middle class lifestyle. A Master Carpenter used to make around $18-24 dollars an hour. Now they can barely make $10 in a lot of cases because they get undercut by cheap Mexican labor. How can you tell someone who's spent the last twenty years of his life in a profession that he should just find a new job so Jorge or Emilio can take his job?

    You're starting to see it creeping into white collar jobs as well, where a lot of Silicon Valley firms are passing over American IT specialists who they have to pay and treat fairly for Indian and Chinese workers who will work 20 hours a day at depressed wages who are scared to say anything because they don't want their visa pulled. They want to stay here, apply to be a resident, and then try to petition to get the rest of their family to be allowed over here.

    So basically you're pushing the idea that we should be eating the middle class so that those at the top can rake in even more money by exploiting people who are willing to let themselves be exploited.
    All of these are bad things and it sounds tough living where you live, but it seems like your situation is akin to living in a bad neighborhood. Is the economic and property damage and danger really so bad that we should be sending military to guard our borders? And would rounding up illegals in your area and shipping them back really do anything to improve the situation?

    Your "bad neighborhood" happens to be an entire geographical region of thousand of miles. I don't know where you get the idea that we "round them up", like a cattle russle. Its more often than not a long, drawn out stalk over several hours with one or two agents tracking through the desert to pop a group, and then maybe grabbing five or six while the rest scatter. Then they'll wander through the desert and try to call for help.

    But its a good question, why do we do it if they keep coming? For the same reason we need a fence, even though they're going to come over it. Because its deterrence. The fence will stop some of them. The fact that you have agents out there will stop some more. The fact that they may die in the desert if they try to run due to exposure will stop more. There will ALWAYS be people who will come, but there will be less the more hurdles you put up. Saying "but they keep coming!" isn't a reason to just open the gates.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    But its a good question, why do we do it if they keep coming? For the same reason we need a fence, even though they're going to come over it. Because its deterrence. The fence will stop some of them. The fact that you have agents out there will stop some more. The fact that they may die in the desert if they try to run due to exposure will stop more.

    So you support a policy that indirectly kills people. A policy which needs to kill people to be a deterrent. While, yes, building the fences in such a way that people can't cross over the easy points is a grey area, do you see how I could call that a human rights violation? And please do not accuse me of not understanding the constitution, because I'm not talking about it.
    You're starting to see it creeping into white collar jobs as well, where a lot of Silicon Valley firms are passing over American IT specialists who they have to pay and treat fairly for Indian and Chinese workers who will work 20 hours a day at depressed wages who are scared to say anything because they don't want their visa pulled. They want to stay here, apply to be a resident, and then try to petition to get the rest of their family to be allowed over here.

    The white collar thing happens anyway--competition happens on such a large feild there that you can just send it overseas and make the labor cheaper in that way. In fact, because illegal migrants depress wages, that (along with subsidies) could be argued to be keeping jobs in our country, because if farms became less profitable we would probably just import more food and have less farmers. It seems your problem is with globalism and capitalism, not migration.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    It seems your problem is with globalism and capitalism, not migration.
    Yes, but I think really the problem is with whether or not we perceive our government to be doing enough to stop the negative emotional effects of globalism and capitalism, including wage controls, labor controls, trade controls, border controls, etc.

    Someone out there has the incentive and ability to do your job as well or better than you for less money. From a purely economic viewpoint, that's all there is to it. But we expect our governments to do more than just enforce pure economics, and often expect them to aggressively counteract economics when it comes to emotional considerations like family, culture, poverty, health, patriotism, etc. So, it is likely inevitable that regardless of the facts or effects, there will be a minimum wage, border control, government-sponsored health care, welfare, and so on.

    Yar on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010

    So you support a policy that indirectly kills people. A policy which needs to kill people to be a deterrent. While, yes, building the fences in such a way that people can't cross over the easy points is a grey area, do you see how I could call that a human rights violation? And please do not accuse me of not understanding the constitution, because I'm not talking about it.

    You can plant your flag all you want to about "human rights", but no one is forcing them to cross the Sonoran Desert. The fact that Operation: Gatekeeper came about was to cut down on the amount of illegal alien related crimes that kept occuring in border communities like El Paso and San Diego. Again, you're putting the rights of non-citizens over citizens. That's not how government works. Sorry.
    The white collar thing happens anyway--competition happens on such a large feild there that you can just send it overseas and make the labor cheaper in that way. In fact, because illegal migrants depress wages, that (along with subsidies) could be argued to be keeping jobs in our country, because if farms became less profitable we would probably just import more food and have less farmers. It seems your problem is with globalism and capitalism, not migration.

    Rape happens anyway. Drunk driving happens anyway. Murder happens anyway. All crime happens anyway. So you're saying that because people are going to do it anyway we should just let them get away with it?

    Your argument that illegal aliens keep jobs in the country is spurious and incredibly false at its face: How are you going to export services, agricultural, and homebuilding jobs overseas? You can't, at least not at the scale you're talking about. Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. You're just being intellectually lazy here.

    And believe it or not, globalization, immigration, and capitlization are all interconnected!

    legionofone on
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    But its a good question, why do we do it if they keep coming? For the same reason we need a fence, even though they're going to come over it. Because its deterrence. The fence will stop some of them. The fact that you have agents out there will stop some more. The fact that they may die in the desert if they try to run due to exposure will stop more.

    So you support a policy that indirectly kills people. A policy which needs to kill people to be a deterrent. While, yes, building the fences in such a way that people can't cross over the easy points is a grey area, do you see how I could call that a human rights violation? And please do not accuse me of not understanding the constitution, because I'm not talking about it.

    I'd stop short of shooting unarmed immigrants (as opposed to the armed coyotes in some areas), but we have no responsibility to assure their crime is sufficiently safe.
    Yar wrote: »
    It seems your problem is with globalism and capitalism, not migration.
    Yes, but I think really the problem is with whether or not we perceive our government to be doing enough to stop the negative emotional effects of globalism and capitalism, including wage controls, labor controls, trade controls, border controls, etc.

    Someone out there has the incentive and ability to do your job as well or better than you for less money. From a purely economic viewpoint, that's all there is to it. But we expect our governments to do more than just enforce pure economics, and often expect them to aggressively counteract economics when it comes to emotional considerations like family, culture, poverty, health, patriotism, etc. So, it is likely inevitable that regardless of the facts or effects, there will be a minimum wage, border control, government-sponsored health care, welfare, and so on.

    It's not an emotional consideration, but rather a quality of life consideration. Just letting the free market do whatever the fuck it wants does not result in the greatest good for the greatest number.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    But, legionofone, you also argued about Indian and Chinese workers working for lower salaries for fear of losing their visas, which implies legal immigration on their parts (their ability to legally sponsor other family members to come over notwithstanding, which you also seemed to have a problem with), so... what, exactly are you arguing against? Immigration as a whole? Immigration for anyone willing to work for less than an American citizen? What?

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    But, legionofone, you also argued about Indian and Chinese workers working for lower salaries for fear of losing their visas, which implies legal immigration on their parts (their ability to legally sponsor other family members to come over notwithstanding, which you also seemed to have a problem with), so... what, exactly are you arguing against? Immigration as a whole? Immigration for anyone willing to work for less than an American citizen? What?

    The abuse of immigration laws, pretty much. The H-1B visa and other work related visas have a line that reads "only if no US citizen workers can be found".

    The fact is, there are plenty of out of work engineers and IT specialists that get passed over, because its cheaper for Microsoft and et al to hire overseas foreign workers. You don't see the issue with our middle class being killed so the "free market" can make a very few people a lot richer?

    I don't have a problem with them petioning for their families, I'm giving you the big reason why they let themselves be exploited. You sound like you don't have a problem with a manager yanking someone's visa if they refuse to work a twenty hour day at a portion of the rate that a US citizen or legal resident would be paid at.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    But, legionofone, you also argued about Indian and Chinese workers working for lower salaries for fear of losing their visas, which implies legal immigration on their parts (their ability to legally sponsor other family members to come over notwithstanding, which you also seemed to have a problem with), so... what, exactly are you arguing against? Immigration as a whole? Immigration for anyone willing to work for less than an American citizen? What?

    The abuse of immigration laws, pretty much. The H-1B visa and other work related visas have a line that reads "only if no US citizen workers can be found".

    The fact is, there are plenty of out of work engineers and IT specialists that get passed over, because its cheaper for Microsoft and et al to hire overseas foreign workers. You don't see the issue with our middle class being killed so the "free market" can make a very few people a lot richer?

    I don't have a problem with them petioning for their families, I'm giving you the big reason why they let themselves be exploited. You sound like you don't have a problem with a manager yanking someone's visa if they refuse to work a twenty hour day.

    Actually, what I have a problem with is companies exploiting people just because they're willing to be exploited, not the people. And yes, I do have a problem with someone's visa being taken away because they're not willing to be virtual slave labor. What I also had a problem with was the tone of your previous post, which read to me more like "and then there'll be more of them!" and raised my eyebrows a bit.

    But apparently unlike you, I asked you directly what you meant before I voiced my assumption.

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    But its a good question, why do we do it if they keep coming? For the same reason we need a fence, even though they're going to come over it. Because its deterrence. The fence will stop some of them. The fact that you have agents out there will stop some more. The fact that they may die in the desert if they try to run due to exposure will stop more.

    So you support a policy that indirectly kills people. A policy which needs to kill people to be a deterrent. While, yes, building the fences in such a way that people can't cross over the easy points is a grey area, do you see how I could call that a human rights violation?
    The policy doesn't need to kill anyone. Its not like some snipers or hunter-killer robots that need to shoot a few people in order to deter them, its a fucking dessert. Barren, hot, not a nice place for a hike, and pretty fucking obvious that its there.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »

    Actually, what I have a problem with is companies exploiting people just because they're willing to be exploited, not the people. And yes, I do have a problem with someone's visa being taken away because they're not willing to be virtual slave labor. What I also had a problem with was the tone of your previous post, which read to me more like "and then there'll be more of them!" and raised my eyebrows a bit.

    But apparently unlike you, I asked you directly what you meant before I voiced my assumption.

    Wait wait, you're getting upset at me for making an assumption? Especially after you made a post that didn't quite hide your assumption as well as you'd like to think in regard to me being scared of more brown people?

    Maybe you were just getting a bit of blow back because of the tone of your post, chief.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »

    Actually, what I have a problem with is companies exploiting people just because they're willing to be exploited, not the people. And yes, I do have a problem with someone's visa being taken away because they're not willing to be virtual slave labor. What I also had a problem with was the tone of your previous post, which read to me more like "and then there'll be more of them!" and raised my eyebrows a bit.

    But apparently unlike you, I asked you directly what you meant before I voiced my assumption.

    Wait wait, you're getting upset at me for making an assumption? Especially after you made a post that didn't quite hide your assumption as well as you'd like to think in regard to me being scared of more brown people?

    Maybe you were just getting a bit of blow back because of the tone of your post, chief.

    Actually, sister, the commonality I was thinking of was more along the lines of non-English speakers than the relative hue of the immigrant's skin.

    Anything else you'd like to surmise about me, or you wanna take this outside?

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »

    Actually, what I have a problem with is companies exploiting people just because they're willing to be exploited, not the people. And yes, I do have a problem with someone's visa being taken away because they're not willing to be virtual slave labor. What I also had a problem with was the tone of your previous post, which read to me more like "and then there'll be more of them!" and raised my eyebrows a bit.

    But apparently unlike you, I asked you directly what you meant before I voiced my assumption.

    Wait wait, you're getting upset at me for making an assumption? Especially after you made a post that didn't quite hide your assumption as well as you'd like to think in regard to me being scared of more brown people?

    Maybe you were just getting a bit of blow back because of the tone of your post, chief.

    Actually, sister, the commonality I was thinking of was more along the lines of non-English speakers than the relative hue of the immigrant's skin.

    Anything else you'd like to surmise about me, or you wanna take this outside?

    Brown skin or non english, you were still being a snark, and got a little indignant when I gave a little bit of it back to you.

    And no, I only slapfight. Sorry. Let's get back O/T and stop waving our cocks around.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    psychoticdreampsychoticdream Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    despite being a citizen , i'm scared :( i look SO hispanic i'm afraid of being harassed because of that stupid law in arizona (which is why i'l never go there but hope it doesn't spread besides i already get a lot of shit here in upstate ny anyway)

    psychoticdream on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Sure. So your problem is with poor and uneducated people, not immigrants in particular.
    Almost all of our social pathologies in this country are caused by ther poor and uneducated. I don't see any advantage in importing a large number of new people who fall into these categories. If tyou think there is some advantage to growing the underclass, please share.
    Yes, their "status" is illegal. That really isn't any different. How does one's "status" (or being) make them a criminal?
    A drunk driver is guilty of a crime because his state of being consists of being drunk behind the wheel. A trespasser is guillty of a crime because his state of being consists of being somewhere ilegally. An illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime because he is in the United States without proper legal authorization.

    I don't know how I can make this simpler for you.
    This isn't an argument. All you are saying is "that's just how it is and I don't want to hear no different." You are effectively admitting that you can't justify your stance.
    No, I've pointed out to you what an "illegal immigrant" is- someone who is within the United States without proper legal authority. But you seem to want to discuss abstract notions of whether or not the United States government "owns" the border.
    Well, I haven't proposed anything. But the unskilled poor of the world would not come here unless their lives were the better for it. That's all I'm really getting at. Call it table pounding or heart strings or whatever, but at the end of the day you are forced to at least accept the reasoning here - that the benefits to someone coming here are not as important as the possible increased difficulties it would create for us. Even if, as the statistical analysis showed, the benefits to them are 25 - 55 times greater than the potential difficulties created for us. That still doesn't matter. We were born here, they weren't. We get the benefits, and we will spend any reasonble effort we can to force them from enjoying the same. Because of our birthright.
    Pretty much. We don't owe Mexico anything, and we certainly don't owe poor Mexicans an increase in their standard of living, especially not on the backs of our own poor.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited April 2010
    But its a good question, why do we do it if they keep coming? For the same reason we need a fence, even though they're going to come over it. Because its deterrence. The fence will stop some of them. The fact that you have agents out there will stop some more. The fact that they may die in the desert if they try to run due to exposure will stop more.

    So you support a policy that indirectly kills people. A policy which needs to kill people to be a deterrent. While, yes, building the fences in such a way that people can't cross over the easy points is a grey area, do you see how I could call that a human rights violation?
    The policy doesn't need to kill anyone. Its not like some snipers or hunter-killer robots that need to shoot a few people in order to deter them, its a fucking dessert. Barren, hot, not a nice place for a hike, and pretty fucking obvious that its there.

    I dunno, I don't think it's necessarily an easy question. In general, I don't think deterrents that can hurt or kill are inherently evil. If I put razor wire up on the fence around my business, and you try to climb over it, you're going to lacerate the hell out of yourself. Does that make razor wire immoral? No, not in and of itself.

    But let's say you stick it up knowing that the dumbass kids from the local school are going to climb over it anyway, and that those who try will get seriously hurt. What now? You're knowingly hurting kids. Is that justified? Well, I guess it depends on the numbers. What are you protecting in there? How many kids are going to be hurt? If you want to go more extreme, what about putting land mines in your front yard to keep those pesky kids away? Even if you put up a sign saying, "Hey, there are landmines in my front yard, stay away," that's still a fucked-up thing to do.

    As to the immigration wall thing, I think it could be morally justified in certain situations. I'm opposed to it more on the grounds that it's expensive and stupid and there are better ways to address the problem. That it also leads to people dying just makes it stupider.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar - Excellent arguments.

    People attacking Yar - ad hom ad hom ad hom ad hom stop being clever!

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »

    I dunno, I don't think it's necessarily an easy question. In general, I don't think deterrents that can hurt or kill are inherently evil. If I put razor wire up on the fence around my business, and you try to climb over it, you're going to lacerate the hell out of yourself. Does that make razor wire immoral? No, not in and of itself.

    But let's say you stick it up knowing that the dumbass kids from the local school are going to climb over it anyway, and that those who try will get seriously hurt. What now? You're knowingly hurting kids. Is that justified? Well, I guess it depends on the numbers. What are you protecting in there? How many kids are going to be hurt? If you want to go more extreme, what about putting land mines in your front yard to keep those pesky kids away? Even if you put up a sign saying, "Hey, there are landmines in my front yard, stay away," that's still a fucked-up thing to do.

    As to the immigration wall thing, I think it could be morally justified in certain situations. I'm opposed to it more on the grounds that it's expensive and stupid and there are better ways to address the problem. That it also leads to people dying just makes it stupider.

    The analogy breaks down because you're not adding in the greater cost of the kids to your yard.

    Let's say the kids burn down your house, rape your wife and daughter, kill your dog, steal your car and identity. And all the while you've got someone else from a different neightborhood standing by the wayside saying how horrible it is you have a fence because "kids will be kids".

    Like someone said above, we don't owe the poor of Mexico any aid in committing their crime, and we certainly don't owe the government of Mexico any help in keeping the social status quo the way it is. The poor come here partly because Mexico uses us as an escape valve for all of their oppressed minorities. The equivalent would be like us telling all of our urban blacks to "move to Canada!"

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Of course, this must be because Americans simply won't do these jobs and not because the glut of cheap (and often illegal) labor has driven wages to the point where people can do better for themselves by staying unemployed.
    You should think for a while about what you just wrote. Can you explain to me the difference between "simply won't do this job" and "I can do better for myself staying unemployed"? Your sarcasm seems to imply there is some obvious contrast between the two, whereas I'm pretty sure they are one in the same and a great example of what we're talking about.

    That is because you apparently don't understand how the labor market works. In one situation, you have people who refuse to do a job because they feel it is beneath them or just don't want to work that hard. In the other situation, you have people who would be willing to work, but don't because, thanks to wages depressed by an oversupply of labor, taking a job would result in a lower net gain than staying unemployed.

    In other words, saying that illegals take jobs nobody wants is not a valid argument if the reason nobody wants said jobs is that an illegal labor supply has placed them beyond the bounds of practicality.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    A drunk driver is guilty of a crime because his state of being consists of being drunk behind the wheel. A trespasser is guillty of a crime because his state of being consists of being somewhere ilegally. An illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime because he is in the United States without proper legal authorization.

    I don't know how I can make this simpler for you.
    A drunk driver is driving. While intoxicated. An illegal immigrant is illegal not for anything he's doing, but just because he "is" illegal. That's what makes this rather unique and it doesn't quite fit to just equate them with any other criminal.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    No, I've pointed out to you what an "illegal immigrant" is- someone who is within the United States without proper legal authority. But you seem to want to discuss abstract notions of whether or not the United States government "owns" the border.
    This is still not an argument. You've switched from "that's just how it is" to "an illegal immigrant is someone who's illegal." Neither of those make any point at all. I'm asking from where comes the authority to declare someone's very presence in my house or at my business "illegal" even when I've invited them. I'm trying to get anyone in this thread to man up and actually justify anything they are claiming from a reasoned stance. It isn't impossible. It can be done. Saying "they're illegal because they aren't legal" or "they're illegal because that's just how it is" are not very reasoned stances.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Pretty much. We don't owe Mexico anything, and we certainly don't owe poor Mexicans an increase in their standard of living, especially not on the backs of our own poor.
    No, you flipped the point here. I never said we owed them anything. Owing them something would mean going out of your way to help them. I'm trying to figure out the roots of why you feel justified in going out of your way to stop them. You can't use "I don't owe him anything" as justification for interfering with someone else's goals. You can only use that as why you don't want to help.
    In one situation, you have people who refuse to do a job because they feel it is beneath them or just don't want to work that hard. In the other situation, you have people who would be willing to work, but don't because, thanks to wages depressed by an oversupply of labor, taking a job would result in a lower net gain than staying unemployed.
    Sorry, still don't see the difference.
    In other words, saying that illegals take jobs nobody wants is not a valid argument if the reason nobody wants said jobs is that an illegal labor supply has placed them beyond the bounds of practicality.
    That makes no sense. Immigrants wouldn't be running through the desert to get these jobs if they weren't practical for anyone to have them.

    Yar on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    A drunk driver is guilty of a crime because his state of being consists of being drunk behind the wheel. A trespasser is guillty of a crime because his state of being consists of being somewhere ilegally. An illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime because he is in the United States without proper legal authorization.

    I don't know how I can make this simpler for you.
    A drunk driver is driving. While intoxicated. An illegal immigrant is illegal not for anything he's doing, but just because he "is" illegal. That's what makes this rather unique and it doesn't quite fit to just equate them with any other criminal.

    It's impossible to argue with someone that does not have even a basic understanding of the issue they're discussing.

    adytum on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    A drunk driver is guilty of a crime because his state of being consists of being drunk behind the wheel. A trespasser is guillty of a crime because his state of being consists of being somewhere ilegally. An illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime because he is in the United States without proper legal authorization.

    I don't know how I can make this simpler for you.
    A drunk driver is driving. While intoxicated. An illegal immigrant is illegal not for anything he's doing, but just because he "is" illegal. That's what makes this rather unique and it doesn't quite fit to just equate them with any other criminal.

    It's impossible to argue with someone that does not have even a basic understanding of the issue they're discussing.

    Why does he not have a basic understanding?

    specify, because without a specification that seems an aweful like like an insult for no reason other thna he's on the other side of the argument.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    A drunk driver is guilty of a crime because his state of being consists of being drunk behind the wheel. A trespasser is guillty of a crime because his state of being consists of being somewhere ilegally. An illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime because he is in the United States without proper legal authorization.

    I don't know how I can make this simpler for you.
    A drunk driver is driving. While intoxicated. An illegal immigrant is illegal not for anything he's doing, but just because he "is" illegal. That's what makes this rather unique and it doesn't quite fit to just equate them with any other criminal.

    It's impossible to argue with someone that does not have even a basic understanding of the issue they're discussing.

    Why does he not have a basic understanding?

    specify, because without a specification that seems an aweful like like an insult for no reason other thna he's on the other side of the argument.

    Because he's obfuscating a concept as simple as trespassing. Being places you are not suppose to be is a crime. Arguing its only a crime because someone (with the right to decide) decided you aren't allowed there is a meaningless distinction.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    No, I've pointed out to you what an "illegal immigrant" is- someone who is within the United States without proper legal authority. But you seem to want to discuss abstract notions of whether or not the United States government "owns" the border.
    This is still not an argument. You've switched from "that's just how it is" to "an illegal immigrant is someone who's illegal." Neither of those make any point at all. I'm asking from where comes the authority to declare someone's very presence in my house or at my business "illegal" even when I've invited them. I'm trying to get anyone in this thread to man up and actually justify anything they are claiming from a reasoned stance. It isn't impossible. It can be done. Saying "they're illegal because they aren't legal" or "they're illegal because that's just how it is" are not very reasoned stances.

    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    Source: US Constitution

    Regulating immigration and citizenship is an explicit power of the US legislature.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Pretty much. We don't owe Mexico anything, and we certainly don't owe poor Mexicans an increase in their standard of living, especially not on the backs of our own poor.
    No, you flipped the point here. I never said we owed them anything. Owing them something would mean going out of your way to help them. I'm trying to figure out the roots of why you feel justified in going out of your way to stop them. You can't use "I don't owe him anything" as justification for interfering with someone else's goals. You can only use that as why you don't want to help.

    We're not interfering with their third party goals, we are regulating what they do on our land, in our society, in our economy. If they were immigrating to Brazil and we stopped them, that would be interference in something that has nothing to do with us. But as this is our country, we have every legal and moral right to say who comes here.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    A drunk driver is guilty of a crime because his state of being consists of being drunk behind the wheel. A trespasser is guillty of a crime because his state of being consists of being somewhere ilegally. An illegal immigrant is guilty of a crime because he is in the United States without proper legal authorization.

    I don't know how I can make this simpler for you.
    A drunk driver is driving. While intoxicated. An illegal immigrant is illegal not for anything he's doing, but just because he "is" illegal. That's what makes this rather unique and it doesn't quite fit to just equate them with any other criminal.

    It's impossible to argue with someone that does not have even a basic understanding of the issue they're discussing.

    Why does he not have a basic understanding?

    specify, because without a specification that seems an aweful like like an insult for no reason other thna he's on the other side of the argument.

    Because he's obfuscating a concept as simple as trespassing. Being places you are not suppose to be is a crime. Arguing its only a crime because someone (with the right to decide) decided you aren't allowed there is a meaningless distinction.

    States are sovereign entities. He's arguing that they're not. He fails to grasp the basic tenets of, well, just about everything.

    If you still have questions, read some applicable philosophers. Hobbes, Locke, etc.

    adytum on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I doubt Yar takes Locke as the final word, and I certainly hope nobody in this day and age founds their thinking on the writings of Hobbes; brilliant and important as they were, they're a bit, er, fucking dated.

    As a humanist, I'm not inclined to distinguish between the wellbeing of my countryman and the wellbeing of a foreigner, generally speaking. I would of course make exceptions for foreign nationals of a hostile state - even civilians - but only in the case of a just (read: defensive, not preemptive) war.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Edited cause you know what? I don't need to give him more attention or get this thread more O/T.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Where did I say anything about using Hobbes as a basis for thinking? The entire discussion that has been raging is about sovereignty. Do you think Hobbes has nothing to say on the subject? Do you not think Hobbes' writing spurred a significant amount of literature and thought on the subject?

    adytum on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Where did I say anything about using Hobbes as a basis for thinking? The entire discussion that has been raging is about sovereignty. Do you think Hobbes has nothing to say on the subject? Do you not think Hobbes' writing spurred a significant amount of literature and thought on the subject?

    Yes, Hobbes wrote about sovereignty. Yes, his view of sovereignty would absolutely invalidate the argument Yar is making. But not everyone accepts the inarguable truth of Hobbes' writings, myself (and presumably Yar) included. Political philosophy isn't like theology, where you can just cite chapter and verse and expect everyone to be preaching the same gospel.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Where did I say anything about using Hobbes as a basis for thinking? The entire discussion that has been raging is about sovereignty. Do you think Hobbes has nothing to say on the subject? Do you not think Hobbes' writing spurred a significant amount of literature and thought on the subject?

    Yes, Hobbes wrote about sovereignty. Yes, his view of sovereignty would absolutely invalidate the argument Yar is making. But not everyone accepts the inarguable truth of Hobbes' writings, myself (and presumably Yar) included. Political philosophy isn't like theology, where you can just cite chapter and verse and expect everyone to be preaching the same gospel.

    I'm guessing you didn't actually read anything I wrote? Because if you did, you'd notice that your reply completely ignored everything I said.

    Though I guess that's pretty par for the course in this conversation. Maybe you or Yar should make a new thread about sovereignty and try to convince the world why the basis for all of modern civilization is wrong.

    adytum on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Well, I think we've pretty clearly come to a point in the conversation where one's views of the sovereignty of states - and the implications they have regarding our ethical responsibility towards the wellbeing of foreigners - are relevant to the topic of discussion.

    But that Yar's views stand way outside the mainstream of western political thought (and are therefore quite contrary to Hobbes') has no bearing on their validity as an argument in a discussion about immigration.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    In one situation, you have people who refuse to do a job because they feel it is beneath them or just don't want to work that hard. In the other situation, you have people who would be willing to work, but don't because, thanks to wages depressed by an oversupply of labor, taking a job would result in a lower net gain than staying unemployed.
    Sorry, still don't see the difference.
    In other words, saying that illegals take jobs nobody wants is not a valid argument if the reason nobody wants said jobs is that an illegal labor supply has placed them beyond the bounds of practicality.
    That makes no sense. Immigrants wouldn't be running through the desert to get these jobs if they weren't practical for anyone to have them.

    Umm...that is a reflection on the Mexican economy more than the American jobs. However, if you can't see the difference between someone who won't work because they are lazy and someone who won't work because that is the more fiscally advantageous situation, there really isn't any way to continue this discussion.

    Knuckle Dragger on
    Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.

    - John Stuart Mill
  • Options
    EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Ugh. What goosery.

    If you 'don't buy into sovereignty' then what's all that shit about 'drunk drivers are driving'? Either you accept that a state can make and enforce laws or you don't.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    That the state can make and enforce laws is not in dispute. Whether a particular system of laws ought to be justified on the basis that the wellbeing of foreigners is not a relevant quantity in a sovereign state's decision-making... I'm sort of wondering about.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Well, I think we've pretty clearly come to a point in the conversation where one's views of the sovereignty of states - and the implications they have regarding our ethical responsibility towards the wellbeing of foreigners - are relevant to the topic of discussion.

    But that Yar's views stand way outside the mainstream of western political thought (and are therefore quite contrary to Hobbes') has no bearing on their validity as an argument in a discussion about immigration.

    Why are you so stuck on Hobbes? I mentioned his name in passing as a philosopher that wrote about sovereignty. Can you get past it yet? Now?

    By the way, it's not Western political thought, it's all political thought. What do you think that North Korea does to people trying to sneak across the border [hint: she'll tell you] into the country? How about Mexico? Turkey? Egypt? Iran? Morocco? Thailand? Singapore? Israel?

    The only country that I can think of that wouldn't care is Somalia, because they have no functioning government around to care. God, what a workers paradise that place is, right?

    adytum on
  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Well, I think we've pretty clearly come to a point in the conversation where one's views of the sovereignty of states - and the implications they have regarding our ethical responsibility towards the wellbeing of foreigners - are relevant to the topic of discussion.

    But that Yar's views stand way outside the mainstream of western political thought (and are therefore quite contrary to Hobbes') has no bearing on their validity as an argument in a discussion about immigration.

    Why are you so stuck on Hobbes? I mentioned his name in passing as a philosopher that wrote about sovereignty. Can you get past it yet? Now?

    You claimed Yar was arguing that states are not sovereign entities, and that he ought to read up on Hobbes & Locke and learn better. I replied that Hobbes is not the arbiter of ethical justice for most sane modern people, and now you're furious that I'm "stuck on Hobbes?" What's at issue here isn't sovereignty, but rather the question of whether our legislation ought to benefit solely our own citizens or if the wellbeing of foreign nationals on our soil ought to be considered. It's an ethical question, not a legal one, and a lot more difficult than you would make it out to be by appealing to dead political philosophers' nationalism.

    nescientist on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    It's impossible to argue with someone that does not have even a basic understanding of the issue they're discussing.
    That's actually not true. It is, however, impossible to argue with someone who just jumps in here and there with little quips that don't add any points at all to the discussion.
    Because he's obfuscating a concept as simple as trespassing. Being places you are not suppose to be is a crime. Arguing its only a crime because someone (with the right to decide) decided you aren't allowed there is a meaningless distinction.
    It isn't trespassing. I made that pretty clear. They are at a place of work or residence with full invitation of the owner.
    adytum wrote: »
    States are sovereign entities. He's arguing that they're not. He fails to grasp the basic tenets of, well, just about everything.

    If you still have questions, read some applicable philosophers. Hobbes, Locke, etc.
    This is know as "special pleading." You can't just tell me that I don't understand sovereignty and leave it at that. That still isn't an argument of any sort. I am, as always, seeking someone who can justify it.
    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    Source: US Constitution

    Regulating immigration and citizenship is an explicit power of the US legislature.
    This does not preclude our legislature from simply saying that as long as you're here, you're a citizen. Still seeking that justification.

    However, nes, I would say that sovereignty is the only issue here. Because without "sovereignty," and a decent understanding of it and justification for it, the anti-immigration side has absolutely no rational point at all.
    Umm...that is a reflection on the Mexican economy more than the American jobs. However, if you can't see the difference between someone who won't work because they are lazy and someone who won't work because that is the more fiscally advantageous situation, there really isn't any way to continue this discussion.
    I think you are misunderstanding - I don't see what the difference has to do with the discussion or any position anyone takes in the discussion. You won't do the job because the government will give you enough welfare that it ain't worth your time. To me that is not so blatantly different from "too lazy to do it" as you seem to think it obviously is. To the way I'm reasoning this, they are effectively identical. They can be used interchangeably for my purposes and so you aren't making any point. In other words, just pretend those employers are saying, "Americans won't do these jobs because they figure they're better off unemployed. The immigrants don't feel that way, that's why we need them."

    As for sovereignty... this discussion would be easier if many of you would just quit making posts that try to say "you just think x y z!!!!" I never said that I don't acknowledge or respect sovereignty, or that I don't understand its role. I'm just pointing out that saying "sovereignty, duh" is not an argument. You need to be willing to justify specifically what you're for or against here. However, I will say that "sovereignty" as it's being sued here is mainly an old monarchist term where the king owned everything he could see. It's not even the right of a government to rule that I might challenge - I would specifically challenge the justification for a government to treat borders as a wall against any non-combatant peoples or cultures, as opposed to a more modern concept of treating borders as a range of juris diction.

    In other words, the phrase "U.S. soil" doesn't mean "land belonging to our Sovereign Lord Uncle Sam by his divine right," but rather "land upon which Uncle Sam's laws and protections apply." Which makes sovereignty a circular argument as applied to immigration.

    Or, to make it even simpler, you're still left without any rational justification whatsoever as to why a Mexican coming here peacefully is a bad thing for its own sake.

    Hobbes views on sovereignty were that it was not absolute and it was primarily about a social contract - such that perhaps theoretically anyone in a society willing to live in that society as a non-subversive is thereby a citizen.

    Yar on
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    Source: US Constitution

    Regulating immigration and citizenship is an explicit power of the US legislature.
    This does not preclude our legislature from simply saying that as long as you're here, you're a citizen. Still seeking that justification.

    However, nes, I would say that sovereignty is the only issue here. Because without "sovereignty," and a decent understanding of it and justification for it, the anti-immigration side has absolutely no rational point at all.

    I like the scare quotes around "sovereignty." What that means, quite simply, is that people have a right to live in a democracy where, barring any violation of someone's constitutional rights, their votes are respected. So, if myself and fellow Americans want, we can stop certain types of immigration, or people from releasing more than X tons of air pollution each year, or whatever else along those lines.

    Also, your last sentence is deliberately untruthful or ignorant. The economic justifications have been given several times over. Even ignoring more philosophical answers, the reason why large amounts of low-skill immigration is bad is because it disproportionately hurts Americans with low socioeconomic status, and we don't, nor will we for decades, have the programs in place to ameliorate this to the point where we can work past this issue.

    I get that you think poor Americans should be disenfranchised in their own country, I just don't agree with it.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Ooh, philosophy time, I see.

    Why exactly are we assuming that people have inherent rights, either to have their opinions respected or to not be mistreated?

    jothki on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    Ooh, philosophy time, I see.

    Why exactly are we assuming that people have inherent rights, either to have their opinions respected or to not be mistreated?

    No its not.

    If you guys want to make a philosophy thread about peoples rights, go ahead. This one is about dealing with issues that have both feet firmly on the ground, not arguing about what a "right" is while we have very real problems going on in regards to this topic.

    legionofone on
Sign In or Register to comment.