The point is that the two (terrorism and immigration) are inexorably tied. The process by which one comes into the country is based on the latter group but abused by the first. It's not an appeal to emotions so much as a reality check. The costs of terrorism are much larger than illegal immigration and when drafting immigration policy, one should not ignore that it will be exploited by terrorists if possible.
And before you ask me how I can prove the cost difference, know that 9/11 nearly crippled the airline industry (which has a ripple effect) and depressed the NYC economy for several years. That was a partially successful attack. A fully successful attack would be devestating.
I'd tell you to quit while you're ahead, but you're batting under the rhetorical Mendoza Line. You do know that the people behind 9/11 were here legally, right? And your fearmongering is pathetic, at best.
Fine, respect laws until they are changed. That ideal needs to be weighed against the relative values and harms and benefits involved. And there's no reason why, when we change the law, we can't include retroactive changes as well, if they are warranted.
Because the issue is whether or not we can tell non-citizens to stay the hell off our public land without an invitation. Your claim is that public land is owned by nobody, and that nobody has a claim to it, and as such we have no right to tell furriners to stay out of our nation. I am saying that we do have that right, specifically because we are the collective owners of public property, and can do with it as we please.
Dude, what? When did I ever say that? Am I somehow not making it clear to you that I do not understand how public land is in this debate at all? Don't accuse me of making an argument about public land, I have asked you repeatedly to tell me where the hell this "public land" stuff came from! I NEVER made any point about public land, this was and always has been your pet argument that you have never explained. What public lands are you talking about?
No, nobody wants to build a house in the middle of Yosemite. And the homeless guy outside your house doesn't want to remodel your kitchen. He just wants to sleep there for a night or two. And you're going to deny him? Dirty, fucking racist.
Oh my god, it's like you've gone schizophrenic. I can't make any sense out of any of this. Can we use : :: : for our analogies for a minute or something? Because each post I ask for more clarity and isntead I get more O_o and o_O and :shock: as to what you are trying to say.
Like I said, I believe you have a point, but you're going to have to start over because I simply don't get it.
His point is that countries have a right to police their borders and impose immigration requirements on citizenship. You can argue that those laws as they are written may be silly, unjustifiable, and acting against the nation's best interest, but they still have a right to exist rather than being wholly abolished. We should have some immigration laws, they just should be much looser than what they currently are.
There's no way if you knew me in person you could call me a xenophobe, and I don't support illegal immigration. I support LEGAL immigration.
Then perhaps we should start allowing legal immigration. Like with this bill, for instance.
Seriously, this argument here pisses me the fuck off. Anytime somebody starts with the "well, why don't they just come here legally" argument, I automatically brand them as a retard. Why?
This isn't 1907, when your fucking great-granddaddy just had to stand in a line at Ellis Island and fill out some fucking paperwork. Today, a hundred years later, we have a stupid quota system designed to keep a minimum on the number of brown people entering the country, not to mention a ridiculously small number of work visas. Did you know that they used up the entire 2007 quota of H-1B work visas in one day? One fucking day, and poof. Better luck next year.
They'd come over here legally if we'd fucking let them in the first fucking place.
That's a lot of bad language.
But your argument is still not clear.
First, I don't get the "brown" argument. That's just nice phrase used to emotionalize the issue.
Second, how many times have I said that I support increasing legal immigration? The issue is not overall immigration numbers, but the process of legalizing individuals who have skirted the law.
You call it "legalizing individuals who have skirted the law".
I call it "fixing a previous fuckup".
When the government declared a general amnesty on everybody who decided to travel to Canada instead of fight in Vietnam, they were "legalizing individuals who have skirted the law". They did this because it was a stupid law, stupid decisions were behind it, and it was better to correct a past mistake than to prosecute people, not to make America a better place, but on general principles.
Same thing here. They're fixing a fucked-up situation where millions of people who should have been let into this country were denied and came over anyway. If they had increased legal immigration years ago this would not even be an issue today.
Fine, respect laws until they are changed. That ideal needs to be weighed against the relative values and harms and benefits involved. And there's no reason why, when we change the law, we can't include retroactive changes as well, if they are warranted.
Pedantic point, but ex post facto. It wouldn't be applicable in this sense, of course, but like I said it's D&D so I'mma be pedantic.
His point is that countries have a right to police their borders and impose immigration requirements on citizenship. You can argue that those laws as they are written may be silly, unjustifiable, and acting against the nation's best interest, but they still have a right to exist rather than being wholly abolished. We should have some immigration laws, they just should be much looser than what they currently are.
Maybe... I still don't see what that has to do with Yosemite or homeless people.
The notion that countries have a "right" to police borders and impose immigration requirements is sort of what I'm arguing against. I don't really see countries as entities which have rights, but basically this is the whole notion of "sovereignty" that philosophically I thought we could abandon along with abondoning our sovereign.
Like I said, I believe you have a point, but you're going to have to start over because I simply don't get it.
Let me try again.
You ask why we have the right to tell certain people they can't come into our country. Is this correct? That you see no justifiable mechanism by which the people of one nation can tell the people of another nation to stay the hell out? Because that's what I've gotten from you, and that's what I've been trying to explain.
We can tell people to stay out of our country for the same reason I can tell you to stay out of my house: It is my house, and it is my property, and I have the right to tell you whether or not you can be there. My reasons might be stupid, but it's still me basic right as a property owner.
Someone who comes into our land does not just magically appear inside someone's house comfortably across the border. He has to travel across public land to do so. He has to use public resources. Since all of these public things he's wandering across and using belong to the people of the US, the people of the US have the right to determine which non-US folks get to be here.
Does that make sense yet?
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.
Fine, respect laws until they are changed. That ideal needs to be weighed against the relative values and harms and benefits involved. And there's no reason why, when we change the law, we can't include retroactive changes as well, if they are warranted.
Pedantic point, but ex post facto. It wouldn't be applicable in this sense, of course, but like I said it's D&D so I'mma be pedantic.
You can't make ex post facto laws that would penalize somebody for something done before the law was passed. I don't believe that there is any restriction on making a law that would create amnesty for something that used to be illegal, but I'm no law scholar. Anyone know any relevant cases?
Pedantic point, but ex post facto. It wouldn't be applicable in this sense, of course, but like I said it's D&D so I'mma be pedantic.
Not exactly. This bill doesn't actually grant ex post facto amnesty, it just offers a new path to legal citizenship. People see it as amnesty because no one's going to bother convicting someone of previously being illegal when they are now legal.
Why do you support imposing the 'rule of law' on people when you will admit that it is an unjust law? Cue Jim Crow imagery.
Becuase we have a system in place to change unjust laws. So I think laws should be respected until they are changed.
I'm sorry but that just does not make any sense to me what so ever.
Well if you think law X is unjust, and think it should be changed that doesn't give you the right to break it. Part of living in a this society is obeying the laws that are in place.
You have two options in the US if you think law X is unjust.
a)Go where law X is legal.
or
b)Try to change law X through legislative means.
Fine, respect laws until they are changed. That ideal needs to be weighed against the relative values and harms and benefits involved. And there's no reason why, when we change the law, we can't include retroactive changes as well, if they are warranted.
I agree! However, I don't feel like the retroactive changes in this bill were warrented.
Like I said, I believe you have a point, but you're going to have to start over because I simply don't get it.
Let me try again.
You ask why we have the right to tell certain people they can't come into our country. Is this correct? That you see no justifiable mechanism by which the people of one nation can tell the people of another nation to stay the hell out? Because that's what I've gotten from you, and that's what I've been trying to explain.
We can tell people to stay out of our country for the same reason I can tell you to stay out of my house: It is my house, and it is my property, and I have the right to tell you whether or not you can be there. My reasons might be stupid, but it's still me basic right as a property owner.
Someone who comes into our land does not just magically appear inside someone's house comfortably across the border. He has to travel across public land to do so. He has to use public resources. Since all of these public things he's wandering across and using belong to the people of the US, the people of the US have the right to determine which non-US folks get to determine whether or not he can be here.
Does that make sense yet?
See, but with your house, you bought it, built it, whatever. You own it given the structure of laws within our country/society.
I think what Yar is disagreeing with (and I'm kinda with him on this) is the concept that "We the people" *CAN* own the area of land we've designated as the United States of America. Since our ownership is really just a matter of fairly uncivilized agreements that boil down to "This is ours now, tough shit, if you try to take it, we'll fucking kill you.", it's hard to look at this as an enlightened perspective. Determining who can and can't go places based on something as fickle as the country you were born in seems almost outlandish.
Fine, respect laws until they are changed. That ideal needs to be weighed against the relative values and harms and benefits involved. And there's no reason why, when we change the law, we can't include retroactive changes as well, if they are warranted.
Pedantic point, but ex post facto. It wouldn't be applicable in this sense, of course, but like I said it's D&D so I'mma be pedantic.
You can't make ex post facto laws that would penalize somebody for something done before the law was passed. I don't believe that there is any restriction on making a law that would create amnesty for something that used to be illegal, but I'm no law scholar. Anyone know any relevant cases?
Right, that's why I said it wouldn't be applicable here. It's not a penalization but, rather, a liberation and shouldn't have any troubles. Yar was loose with his wording and that was basically it. There's nothing wrong with retroactive legislation so long as it doesn't hit the ex post facto snare. This would not.
You ask why we have the right to tell certain people they can't come into our country. Is this correct? That you see no justifiable mechanism by which the people of one nation can tell the people of another nation to stay the hell out? Because that's what I've gotten from you, and that's what I've been trying to explain.
We can tell people to stay out of our country for the same reason I can tell you to stay out of my house: It is my house, and it is my property, and I have the right to tell you whether or not you can be there. My reasons might be stupid, but it's still me basic right as a property owner.
But... this land isn't the collective property of its citizens. The house the immigrant lives in isn't your house. His employer isn't your business.
Someone who comes into our land does not just magically appear inside someone's house comfortably across the border. He has to travel across public land to do so. He has to use public resources. Since all of these public things he's wandering across and using belong to the people of the US, the people of the US have the right to determine which non-US folks get to be here.
Does that make sense yet?
So your entire argument against immigration lies in the notion of public land being crossed to get to private land?
First of all, I'm not so sure that they all cross public land to get here.
Second of all, that seems really dishonest and difficult to believe. Is that really your concern, that the property rights of some public border lands that you don't even use or benefit from, or benefit form the sanctity of, are being violated? It has nothing to do with the millions of immigrants here and now working and living and speaking spanish and changing our culture, it's really just about some piece of land they may have briefly set foot on along the way?
Third, it doesn't matter anyway. If we took the extreme, that anyone coming into U.S. boundaries may willfully and in good fath declare themsevles a U.S. citizen, then the instant their foot touched that public land, it would be their public land, too, and you'd no longer have right to tell them to fuck off. So, just like every other argument, it goes right back to "but they don't have my super elite birthright!"
Really, though, I think you need something better. This public land thing has just gotten... weird. I'm not convinced you yourself fully believe this argument you're trying to make.
The point is that the two (terrorism and immigration) are inexorably tied. The process by which one comes into the country is based on the latter group but abused by the first. It's not an appeal to emotions so much as a reality check. The costs of terrorism are much larger than illegal immigration and when drafting immigration policy, one should not ignore that it will be exploited by terrorists if possible.
This is the point you whistled past before.
And before you ask me how I can prove the cost difference, know that 9/11 nearly crippled the airline industry (which has a ripple effect) and depressed the NYC economy for several years. That was a partially successful attack. A fully successful attack would be devestating.
And that's a piss-poor proof. For one, 9/11 was as successful as it could meaningfully have been. The one failing was that they didn't take out the White House, and it's not like a missing White House would've made the attack any more devastating to the economy. And even the worst terrorist attack in US history, and one that was phenomenally successful and well-orchestrated, was a blip on the long-term performance of our economy. Airlines are a crippled, pathetic industry anyway, so sending them into a tailspin wasn't a terrific feat. It slightly deepened an existing depression, and hurt the economy of one city for a few years. Woo.
Whatever economic effects exist from illegal immigration, they're persistent and affect huge portions of several states, encompassing tens of millions of people. At the end of the day, your argument is still just "terrorists, ooga booga," and that's even if we take as a given your made-up "100 terrorists" factoid.
Let's reframe the statistics somewhat: In the past 50 years, how many people have snuck across our southern border and then gone on to successfully commit a terrorist act? I'll give you an internet cookie if you can come up with enough examples to fill one hand. Now, consider that in order to oppose amnesty on terrorist grounds, you have to suppose that a terrorist's plan consisted of hopping the border illegally, and then waiting here for a decade or two in hopes that we got around to another mass-amnesty program. Anyone stupid enough to use that kind of plan is going to be easy to spot, because he'll be walking down the street asking, "Which way to the subway station? I would like to blow it up. Also: durka durka jihad."
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.
I agree! However, I don't feel like the retroactive changes in this bill were warrented.
Because... not adhering to an unjustified quota or a unjustified sufficient paperwork requirement is so much more important than the dream of a better life?
Pedantic point, but ex post facto. It wouldn't be applicable in this sense, of course, but like I said it's D&D so I'mma be pedantic.
Not exactly. This bill doesn't actually grant ex post facto amnesty, it just offers a new path to legal citizenship. People see it as amnesty because no one's going to bother convicting someone of previously being illegal when they are now legal.
Exactly -- people keep missing this. It's just a new way to apply for legal citizenship that doesn't involve sitting outside the doorstep and begging until we deem you worthy. I really think that's part of what pisses the opposition off so much -- they really want immigrants to lick their boots first before they say they can sit at the same table. It's bullshit. Many of these families have been licking our boots for years now, and the human thing to do is to stop pretending like they still have to stay in the servant's quarters when they're really part of the family.
Holy shit guys, we have an actual hard-working working class again in this country, instead of our usual whining poor people blaming everyone and demanding handouts. And what do we do? We shit on them and try to kick them out. You're killing the enema this country so desperately needs.
So your entire argument against immigration lies in the notion of public land being crossed to get to private land?
It consists of the fact that they are repeatedly using public resources which are the collective property of US citizens. Being on public land while they're here is only part of it.
First of all, I'm not so sure that they all cross public land to get here.
So? Are you saying that they don't use public resources at any point, and never set foot on public land? If they cross a goddamned street, they're on public land.
Is that really your concern, that the property rights of some public border lands that you don't even use or benefit from, or benefit form the sanctity of, are being violated? It has nothing to do with the millions of immigrants here and now working and living and speaking spanish and changing our culture, it's really just about some piece of land they may have briefly set foot on along the way?
I'm not arguing concerns. I'm telling you where the right to keep out non-citizens comes from. Why we choose to exercise that right is a completely different argument, especially given that you're not even convinced the right exists. Having this argument with you is like trying to discuss with an ardent first-amendment supporter the best way to go about burning all the books.
Third, it doesn't matter anyway. If we took the extreme, that anyone coming into U.S. boundaries may willfully and in good fath declare themsevles a U.S. citizen, then the instant their foot touched that public land, it would be their public land, too, and you'd no longer have right to tell them to fuck off. So, just like every other argument, it goes right back to "but they don't have my super elite birthright!"
What? That's retarded. Of course if we told every person who came here they were a citizen, then there would be no plausible way to object to people coming in. That's... that's not an argument. It's barely even a cogent thought. If you look at the non-trivially-stupid position, where We the People get to decide how many people get to come in each year, then the problem doesn't reducto ad absurdum itself out of existence.
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.
If there's a guy who wants to pay me more than I make now to do a job I can do well, then I think it's a fundamental human right for me to go get that job.
If someone else wants to say, "whoa-ho! People born like you were don't get to step over this imaginary line!" then yeah, that's an unjust law.
Holy shit guys, we have an actual hard-working working class again in this country, instead of our usual whining poor people blaming everyone and demanding handouts. And what do we do? We shit on them and try to kick them out. You're killing the enema this country so desperately needs.
Which is why it pisses me off so much when conservatives oppose this -- this is exactly the type of stories that conservatives love to hear!
But the problem? Different language, different culture, different skin color -- so all these people doing exactly what conservatives tell poor people do -- make do however possible with as little state assistance as possible -- are denied the right to fully participate. It's shameful.
Well if you think law X is unjust, and think it should be changed that doesn't give you the right to break it.
Yes, actually, it does.
Really? So if I think any law is unjust I can break it?
What if I think it's unjust that I have to pay for things?
You'd be a fool and a thief.
But, I'd be punsihed if I did break the law.
So lets say I'm a fugitive thief, hiding from the athorities. Becuase I thought it was unjust that I had to buy things. If a law was passed that made things easier to buy I'd still be a thief. And still deserve punishment.
What? That's retarded. Of course if we told every person who came here they were a citizen, then there would be no plausible way to object to people coming in. That's... that's not an argument. It's barely even a cogent thought. If you look at the non-trivially-stupid position, where We the People get to decide how many people get to come in each year, then the problem doesn't reducto ad absurdum itself out of existence.
Ah, so my point is just trivially stupid; you win. I think that's where we ended up last time.
The public resources you refer to were created with certain purposes in mind. Roads (ignoring the miltary thing) are so that labor can get to employment and keep the economy moving. They serve their purpose to the public good regardless of the citizenship status of those travelling on them. They were not created as a mechanism for enforcing birthrights. That's what the "King's Road" was.
And if we need to delve further into the moral and practical justification for public resources, we can, but I can assure you it will end with no logical distinction based on where an individual might have been born. We have WIC to feed hungry children for moral reasons. There isn't really a "hungry non-spic children" addendum to that morality, nor can one be justified.
Public property isn't just private property collectively owned. Public property exists only for a purpose. Preservation, economic, moral, whatever. These purposes are not about where someone was born, or even really about who does or does not get to declare themselves part of the ownership collective.
Well if you think law X is unjust, and think it should be changed that doesn't give you the right to break it.
Yes, actually, it does.
Really? So if I think any law is unjust I can break it?
What if I think it's unjust that I have to pay for things?
You'd be a fool and a thief.
But, I'd be punsihed if I did break the law.
So lets say I'm a fugitive thief, hiding from the athorities. Becuase I thought it was unjust that I had to buy things. If a law was passed that made things easier to buy I'd still be a thief. And still deserve punishment.
So hey, go ahead and ignore the coherent argument in favor of the less coherent one. What's that "debate" tactic called again?
Which is why it pisses me off so much when conservatives oppose this -- this is exactly the type of stories that conservatives love to hear!
But the problem? Different language, different culture, different skin color -- so all these people doing exactly what conservatives tell poor people do -- make do however possible with as little state assistance as possible -- are denied the right to fully participate. It's shameful.
Well if you think law X is unjust, and think it should be changed that doesn't give you the right to break it.
Yes, actually, it does.
Really? So if I think any law is unjust I can break it?
What if I think it's unjust that I have to pay for things?
You'd be a fool and a thief.
But, I'd be punsihed if I did break the law.
So lets say I'm a fugitive thief, hiding from the athorities. Becuase I thought it was unjust that I had to buy things. If a law was passed that made things easier to buy I'd still be a thief. And still deserve punishment.
How is stealing someone's property in any way analagous to being gainfully employed? Also, what Warlock said.
The point is that the two (terrorism and immigration) are inexorably tied. The process by which one comes into the country is based on the latter group but abused by the first. It's not an appeal to emotions so much as a reality check. The costs of terrorism are much larger than illegal immigration and when drafting immigration policy, one should not ignore that it will be exploited by terrorists if possible.
And before you ask me how I can prove the cost difference, know that 9/11 nearly crippled the airline industry (which has a ripple effect) and depressed the NYC economy for several years. That was a partially successful attack. A fully successful attack would be devestating.
Partially successful attack? They were surprised that it actually worked. They never intended to bring the towers down at all. That was a bonus. They had no idea that the towers would be weakened enough to collapse.
If that's your conception of a partially successful attack, what is a fully successful attack? Biological weapon? Nuclear weapon? Earthquake ray?
So hey, go ahead and ignore the coherent argument in favor of the less coherent one. What's that "debate" tactic called again?
Which arguement is that?
The law isn't fair? Sounds alot like my counter point that 'buying things isn't fair'.
Then you'll get arrested, and society will disagree.
What if you're John Zenger and think that it's unjust that you're not allowed to criticize the governor in your newspaper?
Laws are a tool to keep society organized, not an end in and of themselves.
Another good example: people willfully violated fugitive slave laws. The laws were changed afterwards. Were the people illegally freeing slaves justified in their actions, or are they evil for breaking an unjust law? Juries tended to go either way, at the time.
Ah, so my point is just trivially stupid; you win. I think that's where we ended up last time.
Dude, you said that the problem doesn't exist because if we pretend that as soon as someone steps over here that they become a citizen, then there's nobody who could plausibly be said to be an illegal alien. In what world is that not trivially stupid? It was a horrible, horrible non-point.
And if we need to delve further into the moral and practical justification for public resources, we can, but I can assure you it will end with no logical distinction based on where an individual might have been born. We have WIC to feed hungry children for moral reasons. There isn't really a "hungry non-spic children" addendum to that morality, nor can one be justified.
Good point. If we don't immediately extend Medicare to cover everyone human being on the planet, we have failed as a moral people.
Assuming you don't actually buy that, can you explain why we're morally obligated to extend our resources to every person who's fortunate enough to be able to wander over here, but not every person who's unable, for whatever reason, to show up? The hungry Mexican who's born a stone's-throw from the US is fortunate enough to be able to walk across and demand our health care and so on, but the hungry Somalian is just SOL? That seems pretty freaking arbitrary and elitist, doesn't it?
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.
Another good example: people willfully violated fugitive slave laws. The laws were changed afterwards. Were the people illegally freeing slaves justified in their actions, or are they evil for breaking an unjust law? Juries tended to go either way, at the time.
The matter of good and evil is irrelavent.
It is a matter of people willfully and knowingly breaking laws, and not expecting to be punished. People breaking slave fugative laws expected to be punished if they were caught.
Another good example: people willfully violated fugitive slave laws. The laws were changed afterwards. Were the people illegally freeing slaves justified in their actions, or are they evil for breaking an unjust law? Juries tended to go either way, at the time.
The matter of good and evil is irrelavent.
It is a matter of people willfully and knowingly breaking laws, and not expecting to be punished. People breaking slave fugative laws expected to be punished if they were caught.
And illegal immigrants expect to be deported if INS comes knocking, despite their contributions to our economy, etc.
Another good example: people willfully violated fugitive slave laws. The laws were changed afterwards. Were the people illegally freeing slaves justified in their actions, or are they evil for breaking an unjust law? Juries tended to go either way, at the time.
The matter of good and evil is irrelavent.
It is a matter of people willfully and knowingly breaking laws, and not expecting to be punished. People breaking slave fugative laws expected to be punished if they were caught.
So would you have supported punishing them simply to uphold the rule of law?
"Willfully and knowingly breaking laws" is such a mischaracterization of what we're talking about.
In fact, I'd say "willfully" is simply wrong.
Their will was not to break the law. Their will was to get to work and earn a better life. The law was only incidentally breached in that, as opposed to stealing, where the law is very specifically involved all about what you're trying to do. The law was a fucking technicality regarding a line in the sand that they dared cross.
The wording you use purposefully characterizes someone as saying "fuck American and it's laws, hahaha, I do what Miguel wants to do. BooYAH!" because that false imagery helps make your case. Really its more like, "shit I hope I can get to that job my cousin told me about so I can work hard and earn more without the border patrol sending me back to try again."
Another good example: people willfully violated fugitive slave laws. The laws were changed afterwards. Were the people illegally freeing slaves justified in their actions, or are they evil for breaking an unjust law? Juries tended to go either way, at the time.
The matter of good and evil is irrelavent.
It is a matter of people willfully and knowingly breaking laws, and not expecting to be punished. People breaking slave fugative laws expected to be punished if they were caught.
So would you have supported punishing them simply to uphold the rule of law?
Yes
BUTI would have been on the door step of the whitehouse trying to change it.
Posts
I'm sorry but that just does not make any sense to me what so ever.
His point is that countries have a right to police their borders and impose immigration requirements on citizenship. You can argue that those laws as they are written may be silly, unjustifiable, and acting against the nation's best interest, but they still have a right to exist rather than being wholly abolished. We should have some immigration laws, they just should be much looser than what they currently are.
Yeah, because that's worked so fucking well over the last 230 years or so.
You call it "legalizing individuals who have skirted the law".
I call it "fixing a previous fuckup".
When the government declared a general amnesty on everybody who decided to travel to Canada instead of fight in Vietnam, they were "legalizing individuals who have skirted the law". They did this because it was a stupid law, stupid decisions were behind it, and it was better to correct a past mistake than to prosecute people, not to make America a better place, but on general principles.
Same thing here. They're fixing a fucked-up situation where millions of people who should have been let into this country were denied and came over anyway. If they had increased legal immigration years ago this would not even be an issue today.
Pedantic point, but ex post facto. It wouldn't be applicable in this sense, of course, but like I said it's D&D so I'mma be pedantic.
The notion that countries have a "right" to police borders and impose immigration requirements is sort of what I'm arguing against. I don't really see countries as entities which have rights, but basically this is the whole notion of "sovereignty" that philosophically I thought we could abandon along with abondoning our sovereign.
Let me try again.
You ask why we have the right to tell certain people they can't come into our country. Is this correct? That you see no justifiable mechanism by which the people of one nation can tell the people of another nation to stay the hell out? Because that's what I've gotten from you, and that's what I've been trying to explain.
We can tell people to stay out of our country for the same reason I can tell you to stay out of my house: It is my house, and it is my property, and I have the right to tell you whether or not you can be there. My reasons might be stupid, but it's still me basic right as a property owner.
Someone who comes into our land does not just magically appear inside someone's house comfortably across the border. He has to travel across public land to do so. He has to use public resources. Since all of these public things he's wandering across and using belong to the people of the US, the people of the US have the right to determine which non-US folks get to be here.
Does that make sense yet?
You can't make ex post facto laws that would penalize somebody for something done before the law was passed. I don't believe that there is any restriction on making a law that would create amnesty for something that used to be illegal, but I'm no law scholar. Anyone know any relevant cases?
Well if you think law X is unjust, and think it should be changed that doesn't give you the right to break it. Part of living in a this society is obeying the laws that are in place.
You have two options in the US if you think law X is unjust.
a)Go where law X is legal.
or
b)Try to change law X through legislative means.
I agree! However, I don't feel like the retroactive changes in this bill were warrented.
Well maybe we need to change the process in wich we adjust laws.
See, but with your house, you bought it, built it, whatever. You own it given the structure of laws within our country/society.
I think what Yar is disagreeing with (and I'm kinda with him on this) is the concept that "We the people" *CAN* own the area of land we've designated as the United States of America. Since our ownership is really just a matter of fairly uncivilized agreements that boil down to "This is ours now, tough shit, if you try to take it, we'll fucking kill you.", it's hard to look at this as an enlightened perspective. Determining who can and can't go places based on something as fickle as the country you were born in seems almost outlandish.
Right, that's why I said it wouldn't be applicable here. It's not a penalization but, rather, a liberation and shouldn't have any troubles. Yar was loose with his wording and that was basically it. There's nothing wrong with retroactive legislation so long as it doesn't hit the ex post facto snare. This would not.
Yes, actually, it does.
Tell that to SCOTUS. I think they'd be fairly surprised at this revelation.
But... this land isn't the collective property of its citizens. The house the immigrant lives in isn't your house. His employer isn't your business.
So your entire argument against immigration lies in the notion of public land being crossed to get to private land?
First of all, I'm not so sure that they all cross public land to get here.
Second of all, that seems really dishonest and difficult to believe. Is that really your concern, that the property rights of some public border lands that you don't even use or benefit from, or benefit form the sanctity of, are being violated? It has nothing to do with the millions of immigrants here and now working and living and speaking spanish and changing our culture, it's really just about some piece of land they may have briefly set foot on along the way?
Third, it doesn't matter anyway. If we took the extreme, that anyone coming into U.S. boundaries may willfully and in good fath declare themsevles a U.S. citizen, then the instant their foot touched that public land, it would be their public land, too, and you'd no longer have right to tell them to fuck off. So, just like every other argument, it goes right back to "but they don't have my super elite birthright!"
Really, though, I think you need something better. This public land thing has just gotten... weird. I'm not convinced you yourself fully believe this argument you're trying to make.
This is the point you whistled past before.
And that's a piss-poor proof. For one, 9/11 was as successful as it could meaningfully have been. The one failing was that they didn't take out the White House, and it's not like a missing White House would've made the attack any more devastating to the economy. And even the worst terrorist attack in US history, and one that was phenomenally successful and well-orchestrated, was a blip on the long-term performance of our economy. Airlines are a crippled, pathetic industry anyway, so sending them into a tailspin wasn't a terrific feat. It slightly deepened an existing depression, and hurt the economy of one city for a few years. Woo.
Whatever economic effects exist from illegal immigration, they're persistent and affect huge portions of several states, encompassing tens of millions of people. At the end of the day, your argument is still just "terrorists, ooga booga," and that's even if we take as a given your made-up "100 terrorists" factoid.
Let's reframe the statistics somewhat: In the past 50 years, how many people have snuck across our southern border and then gone on to successfully commit a terrorist act? I'll give you an internet cookie if you can come up with enough examples to fill one hand. Now, consider that in order to oppose amnesty on terrorist grounds, you have to suppose that a terrorist's plan consisted of hopping the border illegally, and then waiting here for a decade or two in hopes that we got around to another mass-amnesty program. Anyone stupid enough to use that kind of plan is going to be easy to spot, because he'll be walking down the street asking, "Which way to the subway station? I would like to blow it up. Also: durka durka jihad."
What's this "kinda agree" shit? You know you're on board the Yar train now.
What if I think it's unjust that I have to pay for things?
Laws are added, repealed and adjusted.
Holy shit guys, we have an actual hard-working working class again in this country, instead of our usual whining poor people blaming everyone and demanding handouts. And what do we do? We shit on them and try to kick them out. You're killing the enema this country so desperately needs.
Then you'll get arrested, and society will disagree.
What if you're John Zenger and think that it's unjust that you're not allowed to criticize the governor in your newspaper?
Laws are a tool to keep society organized, not an end in and of themselves.
You'd be a fool and a thief.
It consists of the fact that they are repeatedly using public resources which are the collective property of US citizens. Being on public land while they're here is only part of it.
So? Are you saying that they don't use public resources at any point, and never set foot on public land? If they cross a goddamned street, they're on public land.
I'm not arguing concerns. I'm telling you where the right to keep out non-citizens comes from. Why we choose to exercise that right is a completely different argument, especially given that you're not even convinced the right exists. Having this argument with you is like trying to discuss with an ardent first-amendment supporter the best way to go about burning all the books.
What? That's retarded. Of course if we told every person who came here they were a citizen, then there would be no plausible way to object to people coming in. That's... that's not an argument. It's barely even a cogent thought. If you look at the non-trivially-stupid position, where We the People get to decide how many people get to come in each year, then the problem doesn't reducto ad absurdum itself out of existence.
If someone else wants to say, "whoa-ho! People born like you were don't get to step over this imaginary line!" then yeah, that's an unjust law.
But the problem? Different language, different culture, different skin color -- so all these people doing exactly what conservatives tell poor people do -- make do however possible with as little state assistance as possible -- are denied the right to fully participate. It's shameful.
But, I'd be punsihed if I did break the law.
So lets say I'm a fugitive thief, hiding from the athorities. Becuase I thought it was unjust that I had to buy things. If a law was passed that made things easier to buy I'd still be a thief. And still deserve punishment.
The public resources you refer to were created with certain purposes in mind. Roads (ignoring the miltary thing) are so that labor can get to employment and keep the economy moving. They serve their purpose to the public good regardless of the citizenship status of those travelling on them. They were not created as a mechanism for enforcing birthrights. That's what the "King's Road" was.
And if we need to delve further into the moral and practical justification for public resources, we can, but I can assure you it will end with no logical distinction based on where an individual might have been born. We have WIC to feed hungry children for moral reasons. There isn't really a "hungry non-spic children" addendum to that morality, nor can one be justified.
Public property isn't just private property collectively owned. Public property exists only for a purpose. Preservation, economic, moral, whatever. These purposes are not about where someone was born, or even really about who does or does not get to declare themselves part of the ownership collective.
So hey, go ahead and ignore the coherent argument in favor of the less coherent one. What's that "debate" tactic called again?
How is stealing someone's property in any way analagous to being gainfully employed? Also, what Warlock said.
Partially successful attack? They were surprised that it actually worked. They never intended to bring the towers down at all. That was a bonus. They had no idea that the towers would be weakened enough to collapse.
If that's your conception of a partially successful attack, what is a fully successful attack? Biological weapon? Nuclear weapon? Earthquake ray?
Because it involves breaking the the law. Which said law breaker feels is unjust.
Which arguement is that?
The law isn't fair? Sounds alot like my counter point that 'buying things isn't fair'.
Another good example: people willfully violated fugitive slave laws. The laws were changed afterwards. Were the people illegally freeing slaves justified in their actions, or are they evil for breaking an unjust law? Juries tended to go either way, at the time.
Dude, you said that the problem doesn't exist because if we pretend that as soon as someone steps over here that they become a citizen, then there's nobody who could plausibly be said to be an illegal alien. In what world is that not trivially stupid? It was a horrible, horrible non-point.
Good point. If we don't immediately extend Medicare to cover everyone human being on the planet, we have failed as a moral people.
Assuming you don't actually buy that, can you explain why we're morally obligated to extend our resources to every person who's fortunate enough to be able to wander over here, but not every person who's unable, for whatever reason, to show up? The hungry Mexican who's born a stone's-throw from the US is fortunate enough to be able to walk across and demand our health care and so on, but the hungry Somalian is just SOL? That seems pretty freaking arbitrary and elitist, doesn't it?
The matter of good and evil is irrelavent.
It is a matter of people willfully and knowingly breaking laws, and not expecting to be punished. People breaking slave fugative laws expected to be punished if they were caught.
And illegal immigrants expect to be deported if INS comes knocking, despite their contributions to our economy, etc.
Perhaps we should fix this problem?
So would you have supported punishing them simply to uphold the rule of law?
In fact, I'd say "willfully" is simply wrong.
Their will was not to break the law. Their will was to get to work and earn a better life. The law was only incidentally breached in that, as opposed to stealing, where the law is very specifically involved all about what you're trying to do. The law was a fucking technicality regarding a line in the sand that they dared cross.
The wording you use purposefully characterizes someone as saying "fuck American and it's laws, hahaha, I do what Miguel wants to do. BooYAH!" because that false imagery helps make your case. Really its more like, "shit I hope I can get to that job my cousin told me about so I can work hard and earn more without the border patrol sending me back to try again."
Yes
BUT I would have been on the door step of the whitehouse trying to change it.
Yes we should but I don't think the bill was the best way to do so.