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.
Yes we should but I don't think the bill was the best way to do so.
But without the bill it's going to be another n years until we get around to doing anything about it, because Congress moves at a fucking glacial pace with important issues.
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.
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.
How so? Our borders ought to be seen as the extent of our protection and influence, not as our sovereign's lands. You step into our land with the intent to work and live and obey our laws, then you are within that protection and influence and are as much deserving of it as anyone. You aren't special or more deserving just because you were born somewhere.
That's the ideal that we need to use as a starting point, and always respect as the ideal. And then any practicalities you want to bring up which require us to have some paperwork or a background check or health check or whatever, fine. But you need to justify each of them in light of that ideal, and not assume them to be the obvious alternative to some trivially stupid point you won't even consider.
Unfortunately, immigration in this country exists in the exact opposite manner. We created immigration and naturalization specifically to keep out or keep down certain races. The history is clear, it was always about African or Chinese or Irish thinking they are as good as the white man, and although it isn't as blatant anymore, it's still mostly about that. And we view the process such that the ideal is no one coming in, but then add onto that our good graces to allow a pitifully small quota or H1Bs or whatever though a process that is as complex as we can make it.
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?
No, not really. Like I said, our influence and protection can only reach so far. Partially because of the laws of physics, partially because most nations still view a boundary as a sovereign line to be violently guarded. I'm fully acknowledging that some people will be lucky in where they are born. I'm denying you the right to claim we should be actively enforcing that by shitting on those who are lucky enough to have gotten within the practical reach of our protection but still just weren't born in the right place to begin with.
Anyone could potentially make it here. That is an issue of merit. No one can change where they were born.
Ok, so I have an imperfect view of law/justice by your standards.
Oh, and sorry guys, I missed the disclaimer when I made an account on these forums that listed the all the socio-politcal views that I had to agree with before expressing my ideas.
I don't know. This may be kinda naive, but... is there anything to the idea that we could enforce existing laws and maybe make the application process. You know, stop companies from hiring undocumented immigrants. Yeah, then, oh no, they have to pay people minimum wage. Horrid. And there would be increased motivation to become a documented worker.
Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't announced a "War on..." fuck I don't know some mild insulting but politically acceptable term. Reminds me of the war on drugs, and that whole the law doing more harm than the crime thing.
I'm a librial hippy who doesn't really see the problem with letting other compete with me on a, well equal is really too strong a word, not too horribly pitched footing, so I can't say I really loved this bill. Bush was behind it, and that alone makes a prima facie case in my book. And, it could have done more. A step in the right direction, but what would likely be a solitary one for a while.
Ok, so I have an imperfect view of law/justice by your standards.
Oh, and sorry guys, I missed the disclaimer when I made an account on these forums that listed the all the socio-politcal views that I had to agree with before expressing my ideas.
Then explain to me how your views emphasize justice to a sufficient degree? You place a higher regard upon the rule of law, even unjust laws, than you do upon the inherent justice of the situation.
Because there's a lot of hardship involved in moving millions of people around. But I'm open minded and willing to consider it a "good" or "necessary" thing if there's some tangible benefit involved.
The only argument for sending everyone home is the the extremeist adherence to "rule of law" in spite of what is otherwise obviously more practical, just, and beneficial to everyone. In short, the benefit is that people can feel like those damn Mexicans didn't "get away with something" or aren't sitting at home laughing at how "stupid the gringos are" for letting them stay.
Ok, so I have an imperfect view of law/justice by your standards.
Oh, and sorry guys, I missed the disclaimer when I made an account on these forums that listed the all the socio-politcal views that I had to agree with before expressing my ideas.
You don't have to agree with anything but expecting everyone to immediately shift to your point of view is ridiculous. If anything you should be arguing why putting the law over justice would be beneficial.
I don't know. This may be kinda naive, but... is there anything to the idea that we could enforce existing laws and maybe make the application process. You know, stop companies from hiring undocumented immigrants. Yeah, then, oh no, they have to pay people minimum wage. Horrid. And there would be increased motivation to become a documented worker.
The thing is, these illegal Mexicans usually are getting paid minimum wage or higher. I used to work at a vineyard and we would contract out a bunch of the more tedious work to Mexicans, who were almost certainly not legal. Like 20 of them would pour out of the van they showed up in and they wernt too good with the english.
They also all got paid like 12 bucks an hour. But they were doing work that you could literally not find anyone else to do.
I don't know. This may be kinda naive, but... is there anything to the idea that we could enforce existing laws and maybe make the application process. You know, stop companies from hiring undocumented immigrants. Yeah, then, oh no, they have to pay people minimum wage. Horrid. And there would be increased motivation to become a documented worker.
The thing is, these illegal Mexicans usually are getting paid minimum wage or higher. I used to work at a vineyard and we would contract out a bunch of the more tedious work to Mexicans, who were almost certainly not legal. Like 20 of them would pour out of the van they showed up in and they wernt too good with the english.
They also all got paid like 12 bucks an hour. But they were doing work that you could literally not find anyone else to do.
I don't know how great of a counter point that is. Ok, so maybe they make more than minimum wage. Hell, the then those companies have 0 motivation to keep them illegal either. Well, apparently, higher than average frictional unemployment, plays in their favor, but horribly desperate white people would probably be able to do it too. Hell, they'd still have to pay the white people more cause they wouldn't car pool.
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."
Durka durka jihad? Well then, in that case, you're my friend again.
I hope I've not been framing this as solely a terrorism argument -- it's not. Not even close. But it should be on everyone's radar.
The truth is though, the risks are simply too high to say "it's never happened before so it's not an issue now." Impact from a severe terrorist attack goes beyond the depression of a single city. It touches the fabric of our society in profound ways, especially if the loss of life is significant.
For the purposes of this debate though, it looks a little more like this:
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.
Oh God, here we go into what constitutes a fundamental human right. What you listed there is NOT a FHR. Not even close. Though a right to work and lively-hood might be (that's another argument), it is not an unrestricted right. In any society, that society can make those rules fit how they want to.
Try this: go to Mexico and get a job. Fly to Australia and tell them you are looking for employment. Go to Japan and open a sushi-shop.
Try each of these without a passport, without entering customs and then see whether they think it's a FHR. Truth is, you can't go do whatever you want. Those countries don't belong to you, they belong to them.
And that brings up your argument over birthplace rights. These rights are derived from the respective governments, which in turn (especially in America) come from the people therein. It's a construct of modern, non-nomadic society. It's a pretty turn of phrase to argue by, but it's not a really well reasoned point. The alternate involves the abolition of the cornerstone of sovereignty. Are you arguing that?
Durka durka jihad? Well then, in that case, you're my friend again.
I hope I've not been framing this as solely a terrorism argument -- it's not. Not even close. But it should be on everyone's radar.
The truth is though, the risks are simply too high to say "it's never happened before so it's not an issue now." Impact from a severe terrorist attack goes beyond the depression of a single city. It touches the fabric of our society in profound ways, especially if the loss of life is significant.
For the purposes of this debate though, it looks a little more like this:
This bill is ass. Here are the reasons:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
One of those would be terrorism. Just one.
Except for you've actually failed to provide a single valid reason why this bill is a failure besides the incredibly flimsy "rule of law" angle and the terrorism "issue" which is fear-mongering and nothing more.
In other words I'm saying BULLSHIT! until you actually enumerate this long list of reasons you claim to have in your possession.
Durka durka jihad? Well then, in that case, you're my friend again.
I hope I've not been framing this as solely a terrorism argument -- it's not. Not even close. But it should be on everyone's radar.
The truth is though, the risks are simply too high to say "it's never happened before so it's not an issue now." Impact from a severe terrorist attack goes beyond the depression of a single city. It touches the fabric of our society in profound ways, especially if the loss of life is significant.
For the purposes of this debate though, it looks a little more like this:
This bill is ass. Here are the reasons:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
One of those would be terrorism. Just one.
Except for you've actually failed to provide a single valid reason why this bill is a failure besides the incredibly flimsy "rule of law" angle and the terrorism "issue" which is fear-mongering and nothing more.
In other words I'm saying BULLSHIT! until you actually enumerate this long list of reasons you claim to have in your possession.
1) Rule of law - one of the pillars of a functional society. Those who abide by the rules should not be preempted by those who disobey them. That there are instances of other laws being avoided is not de facto proof that this should be.
2) Cost - Illegal immigration costs money. There's the cost of services provided vs. taxes paid. There's the depression of wages due to being "off the books" -- the cost of an employee is greater than their wages so this is often understated.
3) National Security and crime rates- no other major 1st world nation allows for immigration on a large scale without the knowledge of who the people are. It's a major security flaw at the national and local level. There's a significant number of foreign criminals who enter the county.
4) Amnesty - the concept has been tried before, and it seeks to drive additional illegal immigration further down the road. A comprehensive immigration strategy would fix this.
5) Social issues - illegal immigrants by nature are criminals. Argue the fairness of it all you want, but I'm speaking only of the definition of illegality. Due to that, assimilation into society is depressed. Assimilation is a key part of the national identity and is necessary for overall success.
That's not even an exhaustive list. Maybe just the major ones. I'm sure there could be a full-fledged debate on each part individually.
No, not really. Like I said, our influence and protection can only reach so far. Partially because of the laws of physics, partially because most nations still view a boundary as a sovereign line to be violently guarded. I'm fully acknowledging that some people will be lucky in where they are born. I'm denying you the right to claim we should be actively enforcing that by shitting on those who are lucky enough to have gotten within the practical reach of our protection but still just weren't born in the right place to begin with.
Ah ha.
Okay, so it's alright to deprive people of rights and benefits that they really should be granted, morally speaking, if we're doing so on pragmatic grounds. We really should extend Medicare to everyone on the planet, because it's not fair that they don't get it just because they live in Ethiopia, but it wouldn't be practical to do so, and so we can elect not to on those grounds.
That being the case, why can't we refuse to grant full-on citizenship to every last person who steps across the border by reason of pragmatism? If you can at least concede that one could support non-open borders if one could come up with a pragmatic issue with open borders without being a nasty xenophobe-racist, I will consider this a small victory.
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.
4) Amnesty - the concept has been tried before, and it seeks to drive additional illegal immigration further down the road. A comprehensive immigration strategy would fix this.
If an additional avenue for current illegals to gain citizenship was coupled with dramatically larger annual quotas, isn't it very possible that the benefits of border hopping would decrease relative to the costs so as to depress future illegal immigration numbers? Right now, border-hopping is a great idea because otherwise, you'll be waiting in line for 10-15 years. Sure, you might get deported, but shit, 10-15 years. If you were only going to be waiting in line for 1-2 years, would it still be worth the risk?
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.
4) Amnesty - the concept has been tried before, and it seeks to drive additional illegal immigration further down the road. A comprehensive immigration strategy would fix this.
If an additional avenue for current illegals to gain citizenship was coupled with dramatically larger annual quotas, isn't it very possible that the benefits of border hopping would decrease relative to the costs so as to depress future illegal immigration numbers? Right now, border-hopping is a great idea because otherwise, you'll be waiting in line for 10-15 years. Sure, you might get deported, but shit, 10-15 years. If you were only going to be waiting in line for 1-2 years, would it still be worth the risk?
I think you're on the right track there. You need to remove the incentives for illegal immigration. I'm not a big proponent of deportation just to get back in line. Here's what I think, and I think they need to be in this order to be effective.
1) Increase immigration numbers.
2) Streamline processing time.
3) Set drop dead date 12 months in the future.
4) Illegal immigrants must declare themselves by the drop dead date by showing valid foreign ID.
5) Illegal pays fine, gets in line (line is now shorter)
6) Anyone not declared by drop dead date is deported.
I have a massive headache right now, so I don't know that that is completely clear. The key points are:
- validated foreign ID
- penalty for illegality
- faster system in place first
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.
Oh God, here we go into what constitutes a fundamental human right. What you listed there is NOT a FHR. Not even close. Though a right to work and lively-hood might be (that's another argument), it is not an unrestricted right. In any society, that society can make those rules fit how they want to.
Try this: go to Mexico and get a job. Fly to Australia and tell them you are looking for employment. Go to Japan and open a sushi-shop.
Try each of these without a passport, without entering customs and then see whether they think it's a FHR. Truth is, you can't go do whatever you want. Those countries don't belong to you, they belong to them.
And that brings up your argument over birthplace rights. These rights are derived from the respective governments, which in turn (especially in America) come from the people therein. It's a construct of modern, non-nomadic society. It's a pretty turn of phrase to argue by, but it's not a really well reasoned point. The alternate involves the abolition of the cornerstone of sovereignty. Are you arguing that?
The manner in which other countries treat people who were born somewhere else doesn't speak to Yar's point about immigration policy having been developed for fundamentally racist purposes, nor to his assertion that it is inconsistent with the "merit over birthright" ideology that underpins traditional American self-conceptualization.
It also is not immediately clear to me what if anything birthright citizenship has to do with sovereignty, let alone what makes it a fundamental supporting strut thereof.
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.
Oh God, here we go into what constitutes a fundamental human right. What you listed there is NOT a FHR. Not even close. Though a right to work and lively-hood might be (that's another argument), it is not an unrestricted right. In any society, that society can make those rules fit how they want to.
Try this: go to Mexico and get a job. Fly to Australia and tell them you are looking for employment. Go to Japan and open a sushi-shop.
Try each of these without a passport, without entering customs and then see whether they think it's a FHR. Truth is, you can't go do whatever you want. Those countries don't belong to you, they belong to them.
And that brings up your argument over birthplace rights. These rights are derived from the respective governments, which in turn (especially in America) come from the people therein. It's a construct of modern, non-nomadic society. It's a pretty turn of phrase to argue by, but it's not a really well reasoned point. The alternate involves the abolition of the cornerstone of sovereignty. Are you arguing that?
The manner in which other countries treat people who were born somewhere else doesn't speak to Yar's point about immigration policy having been developed for fundamentally racist purposes, nor to his assertion that it is inconsistent with the "merit over birthright" ideology that underpins traditional American self-conceptualization.
It also is not immediately clear to me what if anything birthright citizenship has to do with sovereignty, let alone what makes it a fundamental supporting strut thereof.
Nor does your response really identify what is exactly racist about it.
As for sovereignty, the ability of a nation to make its own immigration laws and determine the enforcement of its border come to mind.
As for sovereignty, the ability of a nation to make its own immigration laws and determine the enforcement of its border come to mind.
A sovereign nation has many rights vis a vis setting internal policy, but simply choosing not to exercise one of those rights, or to exercise it in a very permissive manner, is not the same thing as "the abolition of the cornerstone of sovereignty". For something to be a "cornerstone" of sovereignty, you have to demonstrate or at least persuasively argue that it is the fundamental building block on which everything rests or is derived from.
edit: as for not identifying the racist aspects of it, you mistake Yar's assertion for mine; it's his assertion to justify, I was merely pointing out that your post essentially spoke past rather than to his points.
1) Rule of law - one of the pillars of a functional society. Those who abide by the rules should not be preempted by those who disobey them. That there are instances of other laws being avoided is not de facto proof that this should be.
2) Cost - Illegal immigration costs money. There's the cost of services provided vs. taxes paid. There's the depression of wages due to being "off the books" -- the cost of an employee is greater than their wages so this is often understated.
3) National Security and crime rates- no other major 1st world nation allows for immigration on a large scale without the knowledge of who the people are. It's a major security flaw at the national and local level. There's a significant number of foreign criminals who enter the county.
4) Amnesty - the concept has been tried before, and it seeks to drive additional illegal immigration further down the road. A comprehensive immigration strategy would fix this.
5) Social issues - illegal immigrants by nature are criminals. Argue the fairness of it all you want, but I'm speaking only of the definition of illegality. Due to that, assimilation into society is depressed. Assimilation is a key part of the national identity and is necessary for overall success.
That's not even an exhaustive list. Maybe just the major ones. I'm sure there could be a full-fledged debate on each part individually.
(1) How does amending current law via legal channels undermine the Rule of Law?
(2) Yar has already shown that American poor cost the system more than legal poor and otherwise this point is muddied -- are you saying it's cheaper to keep them illegal or that it's more expensive to keep them illegal? The "national security" shit is fear-mongering through and through and a misguided diversionary tactic.
(3) This is why we have an application process for those people seeking citizenship both within and without the country. Leaving insufficient immigration laws in place only further promotes criminality by forcing these people to operate outside the system. We have no tabs on border-hoppers, but we have some idea who is here when we open viable, legal channels for them to use. Immigration reform directly addresses what you present as a problem here.
(4) As has been pointed out multiple times this isn't amnesty, it's another way for people to apply for legal citizenship. This point you present here is a complete misrepresentation.
(5) "By nature are criminals"? And you wonder where we get this racism stuff. Illegal immigrants are not "by nature" anything. They are breaking the laws currently in place, that's true, but many people have said those laws are unjust and need amendment. As santsodo pointed out, you're upholding the law above justice, which really isn't how this should work. Multiple people have pointed out why this is an asinine assertion and you've done nothing to address it, and in truth is really just another Rule of Law piece of circular reasoning. This could really just go under heading number 1 and then we'd only have 4 reasons of the 8+ you promised to easily find before.
And seriously stop saying "and of course I could go on..." It's crap. Either go on or don't bother mentioning it.
Of course nobody is denying the right of the US government to create immigration policies. however in the real world laws that are illogical, wrong or just plain stupid will continue to be broken regardless of the official policy .
We can make all the laws we want but when they don't work we can't act all fucking surprised when people circumvent them.
1) Rule of law - one of the pillars of a functional society. Those who abide by the rules should not be preempted by those who disobey them. That there are instances of other laws being avoided is not de facto proof that this should be.
2) Cost - Illegal immigration costs money. There's the cost of services provided vs. taxes paid. There's the depression of wages due to being "off the books" -- the cost of an employee is greater than their wages so this is often understated.
3) National Security and crime rates- no other major 1st world nation allows for immigration on a large scale without the knowledge of who the people are. It's a major security flaw at the national and local level. There's a significant number of foreign criminals who enter the county.
4) Amnesty - the concept has been tried before, and it seeks to drive additional illegal immigration further down the road. A comprehensive immigration strategy would fix this.
5) Social issues - illegal immigrants by nature are criminals. Argue the fairness of it all you want, but I'm speaking only of the definition of illegality. Due to that, assimilation into society is depressed. Assimilation is a key part of the national identity and is necessary for overall success.
That's not even an exhaustive list. Maybe just the major ones. I'm sure there could be a full-fledged debate on each part individually.
(1) How does amending current law via legal channels undermine the Rule of Law?
(2) Yar has already shown that American poor cost the system more than legal poor and otherwise this point is muddied -- are you saying it's cheaper to keep them illegal or that it's more expensive to keep them illegal? The "national security" shit is fear-mongering through and through and a misguided diversionary tactic.
(3) This is why we have an application process for those people seeking citizenship both within and without the country. Leaving insufficient immigration laws in place only further promotes criminality by forcing these people to operate outside the system. We have no tabs on border-hoppers, but we have some idea who is here when we open viable, legal channels for them to use. Immigration reform directly addresses what you present as a problem here.
(4) As has been pointed out multiple times this isn't amnesty, it's another way for people to apply for legal citizenship. This point you present here is a complete misrepresentation.
(5) "By nature are criminals"? And you wonder where we get this racism stuff. Illegal immigrants are not "by nature" anything. They are breaking the laws currently in place, that's true, but many people have said those laws are unjust and need amendment. As santsodo pointed out, you're upholding the law above justice, which really isn't how this should work. Multiple people have pointed out why this is an asinine assertion and you've done nothing to address it, and in truth is really just another Rule of Law piece of circular reasoning. This could really just go under heading number 1 and then we'd only have 4 reasons of the 8+ you promised to easily find before.
And seriously stop saying "and of course I could go on..." It's crap. Either go on or don't bother mentioning it.
I'm not building an exhaustive list to defend or tear down what we've all been discussing. This isn't a policy document I'm writing but a summary of points towards an argument in a debate. In addition, I labeled them as "major" points, was this not clear?
As for your specifics, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. You state that illegal immigrants and not really illegal, they just break laws currently in place. I don't even know how to respond to that.
I can assume your bigger issue is with the logic of the law, but that doesn't change the fact that people who break the law are still breaking the law. And just because multiple people make an assertion doesn't mean it's true. Many people assert many things, but not all are realily. Asserting it does not make it so, else why would you even bother arguing my assertions?
As for your specifics, here's what I have to say:
1) Amending current law does not circumvent law. The original reason I put together my list was in response to the problems of illegal immigration in general, not necessarily the reasons I did not support this specific bill. If you look through my posts, you'll see that I've also enumerated my points on how I would like to see the law amended.
2) Illegal immigration costs money. I did not argue that this is the most expensive thing out there, just that it costs money. Has anyone postulated that illegal immigration makes money? Please cite if they did, I did not see it. National security, as addressed by me in this thread, is not a fear mongering tactic. That you dismiss it as such says much about your position. I'm not commenting on your position, mind you, just that you dismiss it and I do not. Disagree with me all you want on this one, I don't care.
3) I think you are confusing my position on the problems with illegal immigration. I am not against reform. In fact, I am for reform.
4) I was pointing out that Amnesty is a problem, because it increased illegals since it last happened in the 80's. When you "This", I assume you speak of the bill itself. This list was not my gripes about the bill.
5) I think I addressed this at the beginning. In addition, I should clarify one point. When I initially put 1-8, that was just an example, I had not tried to enumerate my points prior to this post, so the number eight was just for a visual example. I'll take credit for not making that clear.
Of course nobody is denying the right of the US government to create immigration policies. however in the real world laws that are illogical, wrong or just plain stupid will continue to be broken regardless of the official policy .
We can make all the laws we want but when they don't work we can't act all fucking surprised when people circumvent them.
I can agree with this. The problem is, who decides if it's illogical, wrong or stupid? In this case, it's the person who decides to break it. That's a big problem for society, as this thread has shown, because rational people can disagree about what's illogical, wrong or stupid.
I'm not building an exhaustive list to defend or tear down what we've all been discussing. This isn't a policy document I'm writing but a summary of points towards an argument in a debate. In addition, I labeled them as "major" points, was this not clear?
As for your specifics, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. You state that illegal immigrants and not really illegal, they just break laws currently in place. I don't even know how to respond to that.
I can assume your bigger issue is with the logic of the law, but that doesn't change the fact that people who break the law are still breaking the law. And just because multiple people make an assertion doesn't mean it's true. Many people assert many things, but not all are realily. Asserting it does not make it so, else why would you even bother arguing my assertions?
As for your specifics, here's what I have to say:
1) Amending current law does not circumvent law. The original reason I put together my list was in response to the problems of illegal immigration in general, not necessarily the reasons I did not support this specific bill. If you look through my posts, you'll see that I've also enumerated my points on how I would like to see the law amended.
2) Illegal immigration costs money. I did not argue that this is the most expensive thing out there, just that it costs money. Has anyone postulated that illegal immigration makes money? Please cite if they did, I did not see it. National security, as addressed by me in this thread, is not a fear mongering tactic. That you dismiss it as such says much about your position. I'm not commenting on your position, mind you, just that you dismiss it and I do not. Disagree with me all you want on this one, I don't care.
3) I think you are confusing my position on the problems with illegal immigration. I am not against reform. In fact, I am for reform.
4) I was pointing out that Amnesty is a problem, because it increased illegals since it last happened in the 80's. When you "This", I assume you speak of the bill itself. This list was not my gripes about the bill.
5) I think I addressed this at the beginning. In addition, I should clarify one point. When I initially put 1-8, that was just an example, I had not tried to enumerate my points prior to this post, so the number eight was just for a visual example. I'll take credit for not making that clear.
Anything else?
Well originally I asked you why you opposed this piece of legislation, and you said there are "1-8 etc." problems with it, and I decided to call you on it. I'm sorry to be a jerk about it, but it's like me saying "you know there's lots of good reasons why I'm right, you should know them, so I won't list them." That's crap and I'm not having it.
(1) I just told you I asked about this specific piece of legislation, which does not suddenly make illegal immigrants legal, instead it offers an application process for them to gain citizenship. What is so tricky here? They're still applying for citizenship. They're just doing it from within the country instead of from without. What does that have to do with illegality?
(2) "Illegal immigration costs money"? What does that mean? Who does it cost money to? Who is losing money because of illegal immigration? Please tell me. As far as the terrorist thing, there are like fifteenquadrahojamillion different ways for prospective terrorists to enter the US. Deal with it. You're not magically safe cuz Papa Bush says he's working hard on it. This legislation will have basically a net zero impact on the ability of potential terrorists to enter the country, because as we've repeatedly pointed out -- they're already entering illegally, how does this change the potential number of terrorists that can enter our country?
(3) You say are in fact for reform, which is exactly why I'm asking you why you oppose this reform bill. "I'm for reform but I don't support the proposed reform bill." Makes no sense to me, see? Seems like bullshit to me, see?
(4) Again I thought we were talking about the bill. So we agree that this bill and amnesty have nothing to do with each other?
(5) You made a weak post and I called you on it. See? I'm not even pretending like #5 was anything besides more of the Rule of Law bullshit any more and I'm just going to use it to point out once again how I don't like it when you say "many great arguments can be made" without ever making those arguments. Sorry if it just seems prickish on my end to call you on it, but it also seems like a dick move to say "I'm right but I won't bother really clarifying why or how." The opposition has been leaning on Rule of Law and nebulous "costs" to justify their opposition and little else. I just want to make sure that that's all you really are putting forth here.
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
I hate to mention this because it's somewhat ad-hom, but I know the president of the CIS rather well. The guy, Mark Krikorian, is a second-generation Armenian who believes that the only immigration the US should allow is white European Christians. I mean the guy is a nice guy in general and even helped me move at one point but jesus does he have some crummy and misguided pull-up-the-ladder political beliefs,
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Fair enough. Let's declare it. And then let's retro-fit the injustices of the previous screwed-up laws. Because otherwise, we're asking 12 million people to hoof it back to Mexico just so they can fill out a piece of paper they they could easily fill out where they are now without missing as much work, all for your misguided idealistic adherence to "rule of law" on a law that you obviously don't think was ever good or serious to begin with.
This pilgrimage for your ideology would be an enormous waste of resources and almost impossible to enforce. But anything less is considered "amnesty."
Nope. There are in between steps. It doesn't have to be the extreme.
So what the purpose of it then? Simply punitive? I have a hard time getting behind that.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
Didn't the 9/11 terrorists all cross our borders legally in the first place, with approved visas?
The illegal immigrants = terrorist trope is tired and misguided.
Oh God, here we go into what constitutes a fundamental human right. What you listed there is NOT a FHR. Not even close. Though a right to work and lively-hood might be (that's another argument), it is not an unrestricted right. In any society, that society can make those rules fit how they want to.
That paragraph was pathetic and made no point. If someone has a job I can do and wants to pay me to do it, then I should be able to take that job.
Try this: go to Mexico and get a job. Fly to Australia and tell them you are looking for employment. Go to Japan and open a sushi-shop.
Try each of these without a passport, without entering customs and then see whether they think it's a FHR. Truth is, you can't go do whatever you want. Those countries don't belong to you, they belong to them.
Who is talking about those countries? And no, it doesn't "belong" to "them."
And that brings up your argument over birthplace rights. These rights are derived from the respective governments, which in turn (especially in America) come from the people therein. It's a construct of modern, non-nomadic society. It's a pretty turn of phrase to argue by, but it's not a really well reasoned point. The alternate involves the abolition of the cornerstone of sovereignty. Are you arguing that?
Yes, have you been reading? Do you understand what a "special pleading" argument is? Do you know what "sovereign" is? You are circling around the same point. An illegal alien is just as much "therein" as someone born here. You haven't told me why one gets to be special.
Okay, so it's alright to deprive people of rights and benefits that they really should be granted, morally speaking, if we're doing so on pragmatic grounds. We really should extend Medicare to everyone on the planet, because it's not fair that they don't get it just because they live in Ethiopia, but it wouldn't be practical to do so, and so we can elect not to on those grounds.
That being the case, why can't we refuse to grant full-on citizenship to every last person who steps across the border by reason of pragmatism? If you can at least concede that one could support non-open borders if one could come up with a pragmatic issue with open borders without being a nasty xenophobe-racist, I will consider this a small victory.
I think you misunderstood. It' not that is isn't practical, it's that it isn't feasible. It isn't possible. And other countries would not approve or allow it.
Yeah, sure, if we decide that health care is something that ought to be provided, then yes, morally, it ought to be provided to everyone. But we only have means and ability to provide it where we can.
And, really the bottom line is who is doing what to whom. Granting someone medicare is doing something to them. Allowing them to cross the border is not doing something to them. Shipping them home is doing something to them.
2) Illegal immigration costs money. I did not argue that this is the most expensive thing out there, just that it costs money. Has anyone postulated that illegal immigration makes money? Please cite if they did, I did not see it. National security, as addressed by me in this thread, is not a fear mongering tactic. That you dismiss it as such says much about your position. I'm not commenting on your position, mind you, just that you dismiss it and I do not. Disagree with me all you want on this one, I don't care.
Yeah, that study by the anti-immigration group was pretty clear. An illegal immgrant costs us $2,200 while a legal one or a citizen at the same scio-economic level costs us $7,700. So yeah, keeping them illegal makes money. It's not really a point I'm interested in, because it has little to do with immigration and is actually about our welfare state.
As for the racism bit, immigration laws were constructed specifically to keep out Asians, and naturalization laws were constructued specifically to stop freed blacks from thinking they are citizens. The laws were written that way explicitly.
Fair enough. Let's declare it. And then let's retro-fit the injustices of the previous screwed-up laws. Because otherwise, we're asking 12 million people to hoof it back to Mexico just so they can fill out a piece of paper they they could easily fill out where they are now without missing as much work, all for your misguided idealistic adherence to "rule of law" on a law that you obviously don't think was ever good or serious to begin with.
This pilgrimage for your ideology would be an enormous waste of resources and almost impossible to enforce. But anything less is considered "amnesty."
Nope. There are in between steps. It doesn't have to be the extreme.
So what the purpose of it then? Simply punitive? I have a hard time getting behind that.
Not necessarily, although it would act as an incentive of sorts for going through the process the correct way in the first place.
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.
Didn't the 9/11 terrorists all cross our borders legally in the first place, with approved visas?
The illegal immigrants = terrorist trope is tired and misguided.
Yes, they did. That does not mean the next batch will, especially since it's not easier to sneak in than it is to come legally in many ways. That's not how it should be.
Posts
But without the bill it's going to be another n years until we get around to doing anything about it, because Congress moves at a fucking glacial pace with important issues.
Then you are more interested in the law than justice.
If attempting to enact change through legal channels is not your preferred method, what way do you suggest instead?
Would you have supported the thirteen colonies breaking off from Britain?
!GODWIN ALERT!
Would you have allowed Hitler to round up people instead of trying to protect them because the law was the law?
and for once he was boned by the GOP.
That's the ideal that we need to use as a starting point, and always respect as the ideal. And then any practicalities you want to bring up which require us to have some paperwork or a background check or health check or whatever, fine. But you need to justify each of them in light of that ideal, and not assume them to be the obvious alternative to some trivially stupid point you won't even consider.
Unfortunately, immigration in this country exists in the exact opposite manner. We created immigration and naturalization specifically to keep out or keep down certain races. The history is clear, it was always about African or Chinese or Irish thinking they are as good as the white man, and although it isn't as blatant anymore, it's still mostly about that. And we view the process such that the ideal is no one coming in, but then add onto that our good graces to allow a pitifully small quota or H1Bs or whatever though a process that is as complex as we can make it.
No, not really. Like I said, our influence and protection can only reach so far. Partially because of the laws of physics, partially because most nations still view a boundary as a sovereign line to be violently guarded. I'm fully acknowledging that some people will be lucky in where they are born. I'm denying you the right to claim we should be actively enforcing that by shitting on those who are lucky enough to have gotten within the practical reach of our protection but still just weren't born in the right place to begin with.
Anyone could potentially make it here. That is an issue of merit. No one can change where they were born.
Oh, and sorry guys, I missed the disclaimer when I made an account on these forums that listed the all the socio-politcal views that I had to agree with before expressing my ideas.
Populist politicians.
Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't announced a "War on..." fuck I don't know some mild insulting but politically acceptable term. Reminds me of the war on drugs, and that whole the law doing more harm than the crime thing.
I'm a librial hippy who doesn't really see the problem with letting other compete with me on a, well equal is really too strong a word, not too horribly pitched footing, so I can't say I really loved this bill. Bush was behind it, and that alone makes a prima facie case in my book. And, it could have done more. A step in the right direction, but what would likely be a solitary one for a while.
Then explain to me how your views emphasize justice to a sufficient degree? You place a higher regard upon the rule of law, even unjust laws, than you do upon the inherent justice of the situation.
Is there?
You don't have to agree with anything but expecting everyone to immediately shift to your point of view is ridiculous. If anything you should be arguing why putting the law over justice would be beneficial.
The thing is, these illegal Mexicans usually are getting paid minimum wage or higher. I used to work at a vineyard and we would contract out a bunch of the more tedious work to Mexicans, who were almost certainly not legal. Like 20 of them would pour out of the van they showed up in and they wernt too good with the english.
They also all got paid like 12 bucks an hour. But they were doing work that you could literally not find anyone else to do.
I don't know how great of a counter point that is. Ok, so maybe they make more than minimum wage. Hell, the then those companies have 0 motivation to keep them illegal either. Well, apparently, higher than average frictional unemployment, plays in their favor, but horribly desperate white people would probably be able to do it too. Hell, they'd still have to pay the white people more cause they wouldn't car pool.
I don't know how true that is across the board.
Durka durka jihad? Well then, in that case, you're my friend again.
I hope I've not been framing this as solely a terrorism argument -- it's not. Not even close. But it should be on everyone's radar.
The truth is though, the risks are simply too high to say "it's never happened before so it's not an issue now." Impact from a severe terrorist attack goes beyond the depression of a single city. It touches the fabric of our society in profound ways, especially if the loss of life is significant.
For the purposes of this debate though, it looks a little more like this:
This bill is ass. Here are the reasons:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
One of those would be terrorism. Just one.
Oh God, here we go into what constitutes a fundamental human right. What you listed there is NOT a FHR. Not even close. Though a right to work and lively-hood might be (that's another argument), it is not an unrestricted right. In any society, that society can make those rules fit how they want to.
Try this: go to Mexico and get a job. Fly to Australia and tell them you are looking for employment. Go to Japan and open a sushi-shop.
Try each of these without a passport, without entering customs and then see whether they think it's a FHR. Truth is, you can't go do whatever you want. Those countries don't belong to you, they belong to them.
And that brings up your argument over birthplace rights. These rights are derived from the respective governments, which in turn (especially in America) come from the people therein. It's a construct of modern, non-nomadic society. It's a pretty turn of phrase to argue by, but it's not a really well reasoned point. The alternate involves the abolition of the cornerstone of sovereignty. Are you arguing that?
In other words I'm saying BULLSHIT! until you actually enumerate this long list of reasons you claim to have in your possession.
1) Rule of law - one of the pillars of a functional society. Those who abide by the rules should not be preempted by those who disobey them. That there are instances of other laws being avoided is not de facto proof that this should be.
2) Cost - Illegal immigration costs money. There's the cost of services provided vs. taxes paid. There's the depression of wages due to being "off the books" -- the cost of an employee is greater than their wages so this is often understated.
3) National Security and crime rates- no other major 1st world nation allows for immigration on a large scale without the knowledge of who the people are. It's a major security flaw at the national and local level. There's a significant number of foreign criminals who enter the county.
4) Amnesty - the concept has been tried before, and it seeks to drive additional illegal immigration further down the road. A comprehensive immigration strategy would fix this.
5) Social issues - illegal immigrants by nature are criminals. Argue the fairness of it all you want, but I'm speaking only of the definition of illegality. Due to that, assimilation into society is depressed. Assimilation is a key part of the national identity and is necessary for overall success.
That's not even an exhaustive list. Maybe just the major ones. I'm sure there could be a full-fledged debate on each part individually.
Ah ha.
Okay, so it's alright to deprive people of rights and benefits that they really should be granted, morally speaking, if we're doing so on pragmatic grounds. We really should extend Medicare to everyone on the planet, because it's not fair that they don't get it just because they live in Ethiopia, but it wouldn't be practical to do so, and so we can elect not to on those grounds.
That being the case, why can't we refuse to grant full-on citizenship to every last person who steps across the border by reason of pragmatism? If you can at least concede that one could support non-open borders if one could come up with a pragmatic issue with open borders without being a nasty xenophobe-racist, I will consider this a small victory.
If an additional avenue for current illegals to gain citizenship was coupled with dramatically larger annual quotas, isn't it very possible that the benefits of border hopping would decrease relative to the costs so as to depress future illegal immigration numbers? Right now, border-hopping is a great idea because otherwise, you'll be waiting in line for 10-15 years. Sure, you might get deported, but shit, 10-15 years. If you were only going to be waiting in line for 1-2 years, would it still be worth the risk?
I think you're on the right track there. You need to remove the incentives for illegal immigration. I'm not a big proponent of deportation just to get back in line. Here's what I think, and I think they need to be in this order to be effective.
1) Increase immigration numbers.
2) Streamline processing time.
3) Set drop dead date 12 months in the future.
4) Illegal immigrants must declare themselves by the drop dead date by showing valid foreign ID.
5) Illegal pays fine, gets in line (line is now shorter)
6) Anyone not declared by drop dead date is deported.
I have a massive headache right now, so I don't know that that is completely clear. The key points are:
- validated foreign ID
- penalty for illegality
- faster system in place first
The manner in which other countries treat people who were born somewhere else doesn't speak to Yar's point about immigration policy having been developed for fundamentally racist purposes, nor to his assertion that it is inconsistent with the "merit over birthright" ideology that underpins traditional American self-conceptualization.
It also is not immediately clear to me what if anything birthright citizenship has to do with sovereignty, let alone what makes it a fundamental supporting strut thereof.
Nor does your response really identify what is exactly racist about it.
As for sovereignty, the ability of a nation to make its own immigration laws and determine the enforcement of its border come to mind.
A sovereign nation has many rights vis a vis setting internal policy, but simply choosing not to exercise one of those rights, or to exercise it in a very permissive manner, is not the same thing as "the abolition of the cornerstone of sovereignty". For something to be a "cornerstone" of sovereignty, you have to demonstrate or at least persuasively argue that it is the fundamental building block on which everything rests or is derived from.
edit: as for not identifying the racist aspects of it, you mistake Yar's assertion for mine; it's his assertion to justify, I was merely pointing out that your post essentially spoke past rather than to his points.
(2) Yar has already shown that American poor cost the system more than legal poor and otherwise this point is muddied -- are you saying it's cheaper to keep them illegal or that it's more expensive to keep them illegal? The "national security" shit is fear-mongering through and through and a misguided diversionary tactic.
(3) This is why we have an application process for those people seeking citizenship both within and without the country. Leaving insufficient immigration laws in place only further promotes criminality by forcing these people to operate outside the system. We have no tabs on border-hoppers, but we have some idea who is here when we open viable, legal channels for them to use. Immigration reform directly addresses what you present as a problem here.
(4) As has been pointed out multiple times this isn't amnesty, it's another way for people to apply for legal citizenship. This point you present here is a complete misrepresentation.
(5) "By nature are criminals"? And you wonder where we get this racism stuff. Illegal immigrants are not "by nature" anything. They are breaking the laws currently in place, that's true, but many people have said those laws are unjust and need amendment. As santsodo pointed out, you're upholding the law above justice, which really isn't how this should work. Multiple people have pointed out why this is an asinine assertion and you've done nothing to address it, and in truth is really just another Rule of Law piece of circular reasoning. This could really just go under heading number 1 and then we'd only have 4 reasons of the 8+ you promised to easily find before.
And seriously stop saying "and of course I could go on..." It's crap. Either go on or don't bother mentioning it.
We can make all the laws we want but when they don't work we can't act all fucking surprised when people circumvent them.
I'm not building an exhaustive list to defend or tear down what we've all been discussing. This isn't a policy document I'm writing but a summary of points towards an argument in a debate. In addition, I labeled them as "major" points, was this not clear?
As for your specifics, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. You state that illegal immigrants and not really illegal, they just break laws currently in place. I don't even know how to respond to that.
I can assume your bigger issue is with the logic of the law, but that doesn't change the fact that people who break the law are still breaking the law. And just because multiple people make an assertion doesn't mean it's true. Many people assert many things, but not all are realily. Asserting it does not make it so, else why would you even bother arguing my assertions?
As for your specifics, here's what I have to say:
1) Amending current law does not circumvent law. The original reason I put together my list was in response to the problems of illegal immigration in general, not necessarily the reasons I did not support this specific bill. If you look through my posts, you'll see that I've also enumerated my points on how I would like to see the law amended.
2) Illegal immigration costs money. I did not argue that this is the most expensive thing out there, just that it costs money. Has anyone postulated that illegal immigration makes money? Please cite if they did, I did not see it. National security, as addressed by me in this thread, is not a fear mongering tactic. That you dismiss it as such says much about your position. I'm not commenting on your position, mind you, just that you dismiss it and I do not. Disagree with me all you want on this one, I don't care.
3) I think you are confusing my position on the problems with illegal immigration. I am not against reform. In fact, I am for reform.
4) I was pointing out that Amnesty is a problem, because it increased illegals since it last happened in the 80's. When you "This", I assume you speak of the bill itself. This list was not my gripes about the bill.
5) I think I addressed this at the beginning. In addition, I should clarify one point. When I initially put 1-8, that was just an example, I had not tried to enumerate my points prior to this post, so the number eight was just for a visual example. I'll take credit for not making that clear.
Anything else?
I can agree with this. The problem is, who decides if it's illogical, wrong or stupid? In this case, it's the person who decides to break it. That's a big problem for society, as this thread has shown, because rational people can disagree about what's illogical, wrong or stupid.
(1) I just told you I asked about this specific piece of legislation, which does not suddenly make illegal immigrants legal, instead it offers an application process for them to gain citizenship. What is so tricky here? They're still applying for citizenship. They're just doing it from within the country instead of from without. What does that have to do with illegality?
(2) "Illegal immigration costs money"? What does that mean? Who does it cost money to? Who is losing money because of illegal immigration? Please tell me. As far as the terrorist thing, there are like fifteenquadrahojamillion different ways for prospective terrorists to enter the US. Deal with it. You're not magically safe cuz Papa Bush says he's working hard on it. This legislation will have basically a net zero impact on the ability of potential terrorists to enter the country, because as we've repeatedly pointed out -- they're already entering illegally, how does this change the potential number of terrorists that can enter our country?
(3) You say are in fact for reform, which is exactly why I'm asking you why you oppose this reform bill. "I'm for reform but I don't support the proposed reform bill." Makes no sense to me, see? Seems like bullshit to me, see?
(4) Again I thought we were talking about the bill. So we agree that this bill and amnesty have nothing to do with each other?
(5) You made a weak post and I called you on it. See? I'm not even pretending like #5 was anything besides more of the Rule of Law bullshit any more and I'm just going to use it to point out once again how I don't like it when you say "many great arguments can be made" without ever making those arguments. Sorry if it just seems prickish on my end to call you on it, but it also seems like a dick move to say "I'm right but I won't bother really clarifying why or how." The opposition has been leaning on Rule of Law and nebulous "costs" to justify their opposition and little else. I just want to make sure that that's all you really are putting forth here.
Didn't the 9/11 terrorists all cross our borders legally in the first place, with approved visas?
The illegal immigrants = terrorist trope is tired and misguided.
Who is talking about those countries? And no, it doesn't "belong" to "them."
Yes, have you been reading? Do you understand what a "special pleading" argument is? Do you know what "sovereign" is? You are circling around the same point. An illegal alien is just as much "therein" as someone born here. You haven't told me why one gets to be special.
I think you misunderstood. It' not that is isn't practical, it's that it isn't feasible. It isn't possible. And other countries would not approve or allow it.
Yeah, sure, if we decide that health care is something that ought to be provided, then yes, morally, it ought to be provided to everyone. But we only have means and ability to provide it where we can.
And, really the bottom line is who is doing what to whom. Granting someone medicare is doing something to them. Allowing them to cross the border is not doing something to them. Shipping them home is doing something to them.
You have won no victory here.
Yeah, that study by the anti-immigration group was pretty clear. An illegal immgrant costs us $2,200 while a legal one or a citizen at the same scio-economic level costs us $7,700. So yeah, keeping them illegal makes money. It's not really a point I'm interested in, because it has little to do with immigration and is actually about our welfare state.
As for the racism bit, immigration laws were constructed specifically to keep out Asians, and naturalization laws were constructued specifically to stop freed blacks from thinking they are citizens. The laws were written that way explicitly.
Not necessarily, although it would act as an incentive of sorts for going through the process the correct way in the first place.
Yes, they did. That does not mean the next batch will, especially since it's not easier to sneak in than it is to come legally in many ways. That's not how it should be.