The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Eliminationist Rhetoric and the Culpability of Media Figures
Posts
The comparison isn't to the marches but to the breaking of unjust laws in the South so as to draw attention to their existence and prompt reform.
Well, in this regard (because I actually agree with Moniker and Thanatos and Scalfin on other topics), morality is basically all reform proponents have in their rhetorical arsenal than can't be refuted.
The lengths to which such strawmen are both created and assailed on this issue is impressive, to say the least, but no different really than people like Hannity and O'Reilly do on regular basis.
Hannity: So, are you pro-choice?
Guest: I want women to have options and not be forced into harming themselves or lifestyles.
Hannity: So you advocate the murder of children?
Guest: . . . . no, that's not what I said.
Hannity: So killing your kindergartner is okay if you lose your job? That's what you're saying.
It's pretty annoying, right? To intentionally be led down rhetorical dead ends?
It's at least somewhat disingenuous to say that all or most illegal immigrants did so as an act of civil disobedience, though.
Sure, but the notion that 'they broke the law therefore they have no valid points or complaints' is bullshit.
Again, the need for reform doesn't inherently make a law "unjust." That's just you moralizing. No one is being disenfranchised, because the petitioning party is coming from somewhere else. Mexico's immigration laws are corrupt as hell, but no one cares because no one wants to go there.
Why don't we petition CostCo for charging so much for their memberships? Maybe we should march in protest? Or maybe we just do what is asked or fuck off instead?
No, the laws are generally pretty unjust too. And I don't give a damn about Mexico's immigration policy because I don't live in Mexico and have no means of influence on their government.
No one ever said that. I only said it's ridiculous to petition for laws to be changed after you've broken them. Want to petition for immigration reform? Come over on a visa and petition the government legally, or spur action within the US pro-reform community.
Remember that idiot in the pirating thread that said it was okay to steal video games because they cost so much? You're basically defending the same thinking.
For like the tenth time, citation please.
In which case the guest would have to explain the difference, not bitch about how unfair it is to be subjected to counterarguments.
It isn't ridiculous for Felons to complain about being denied voting rights or for a reform of the corrections system. I don't seem to recall any demands for ex post facto amnesty during the '06 debates. If anything the majority of immigration 'leaders' were pushing for a path to citizenship that would penalize persons who had broken the law.
Second time, and I already gave you one.
Want to protest laws on legal pretests? Well, organize a protest.. thereby breaking the law.
Yeah, real helpful.
I suppose you also think that those arrested for possession had no right to protest the inequities in mandatory minimum sentencing?
Yes, see, this is what I meant when I said arguing over morality doesn't lead anywhere. Let's assume you've made a solid moral case for following a nation's immigration laws to the letter, and lo, your exposition is so awesome that anyone who reads it agrees that a nation would be utterly justified in enforcing whatever rules it so wishes on foreigners trespassing on their territory, who should really just do what is asked or fuck off instead.
Well, so what? Illegal immigration is hardly an issue over which individual decisions involve morality. Mostly they involve practicality: things like, how easily can I cross the border? How good will my life or that of my children be over there? How long can I stay undetected? What is the penalty if I am caught? These are so large that morality simply doesn't factor. This is as purely policy as issues can get. You tweak this policy, you get this effect; you have to accept that hard limits to enforcement apply - people aren't going to bother about the spirit of the law - and have to accept that people will take into account penalties and simply weigh them against possible benefits, rather than go, oh right there's a penalty this means it's wrong, I won't do it. Morality is a non-factor.
Contrast racial discrimination. How plausible is it that the bulk of business owners in the South think "huh I wonder how much trouble I'll get into if I put a WHITES ONLY sign on the front door like they did sixty years ago?" Not very plausible. Conclusion: shifts in moral standards drove shifts in policy, not the other way around. This isn't going to happen with immigration.
buh now i'm off to take a nap. need sleep.
Illegal immigrants shouldn't protest for a change of immigration law because it's... ungrateful, or something.
Obviously, natural-born citizens aren't going to protest these laws (not in large numbers, anyway) because they have no personal stake in them, for themselves or their families.
That leaves legal immigrants, or people who obviously weren't on the receiving end of the shittier side of our immigration policy (or at least came out on top of it).
So who is allowed to protest these laws?
- ACLU
- We Are America Alliance
- Border Angels
- American Immigration Lawyers Association
- New American Opportunity Campaign
It's not like legitimate efforts at reform aren't underway already.
Well, it doesn't help their credibility, which is what all this is about anyway. At least they're likely petitioning their own government for reform.
Well, it doesn't help their credibility, which is what all this is about anyway. At least they're likely petitioning their own government for reform.[/QUOTE]
If a system dehumanizes and disenfranchises you, you don't have a right to be angry about it because you violated part of that system? The whole point is that if the system made more sense, they wouldn't have to violate it. The framework of your analysis makes no sense. It's the exact same logical but wrong syllogism as saying slaves shouldn't have protested the legal institution of slavery because they were just property under that institution, and thus can't protest. It's not even that remote of an analogy, given what illegal immigrants have to put up with for working conditions because they're too scared of being deported to report employers' wage and safety violations and sexual harassment.
Now, if the framework for immigration was more rational - i.e., you pay administrative fees and undergo some sort of security check, trying to reform the system without first undergoing that administrative process may seem churlish or not credible.
But given the sheer impossibility and stupidity of the immigration system, and it's inadequacy to enable the flow of human capital the country needs, what you're saying is merely a somewhat oblique way of saying the system shouldn't be changed - I note that every organization you list there is an NGO of experts, not a broad-based movement, because any broad-based movement seeking immigrants' rights is going to have a large component of undocumented people. NGOs of experts don't win elections and don't provide momentum for change. They might help articulate other people's issues, but the prime mover has to be the people who are being oppressed themselves - in this case, illegal immigrants.
If it's not such a hard process to deal with, I encourage you to renounce your citizenship, become the citizen of another country, and then attempt to live and work in Texas again.
That's absolute moralizing bullshit, and an insult to those who suffered under any kind of slavery, ever.
Illegal immigrants choose to enter this country, and choose to do so illegally despite the existence of a system that will, eventually, let them in. There's no agency in Mexico or El Salvador or wherethefuckever selling people into bondage and shipping them to Phoenix against their will.
you're a fucking genius man, you could dictate the shit out of a country.
I don't know. Go picket Canada for special rights as an American and tell me how it goes.
It's not "a certain group of people." You're intentionally using vague terminology to take a high ground that doesn't exist. The correct term is "foreign nationals." That's what they are.
I'm sorry, was there a meeting in which the definition of slavery was changed to "voluntary practice?" Because operating at a wage below the national standard in the US, with few exception, is illegal.
Stripped of moralizing, the pro-immigration movement has no more solid argument than, "Hey, their country is poor and the line is really, really, really long to come in legally. Of course they deserve special treatment."
I'm all for giving them basic human rights, but voting rights? That doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm kind of slow. I mean I understand the premise, that things need to be made easier so they can become real citizens and they can't push things that way without a voice - but by not being citizens they don't have the right to decide if things should be easier for them. The citizens have to decide that, in the same way that citizens have to decide to vote to give aid to a country that needs food or elected officials need to decide to provide disaster relief to another country - because assisting illegal immigrants is roughly analogous to those things.
As for sweatshop labor, that's already illegal. I'm not sure who supports that.
The whole thing about these last few pages was:
- AngelHedgie, on topic, posted a story about a woman with a hispanic last name getting hate mail for being an "illegal," despite no evidence to that fact. The question was raised about the media's (Dobbs, Beck, et al) culpability in such ridiculous bigotry.
- I posted a reply saying basically that they were, but to a slightly less degree than the Tiller abortion thing because there's no face for the opposition supporting illegal immigrants, but's that mainly because it's an argument of law vs. moralizing.
- Fallout ensued, with several pages of mostly intelligent discourse, smattered with occasional attempts at race-baiting and the destruction of seventeen strawmen. They will be missed.
I don't know, I'm not even sure I blame Dobbs for this. He's frequently wrong and always abrasive, but I assume racists would do this without his encouragement. Has he mentioned the woman specifically?
Not to my knowledge, but that's kinda the whole point.
But honestly I think, no matter what anyone tries to say, there's always one or two crazies that will take it exactly how they want to. The guy at the Holocaust Museum shooting thought for sure Obama and "the Jews" were forming a secret cabal to take his 2nd amendment rights away. So far, personally, I've heard very few pundits opine that there's some kind of Zionist anti-arms movement, so I have to just chalk that one up to insanity.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Oh for sure. I think way back in those pages I agreed that the conservative movement had a bit to answer for there.
But the guy chose his own brand of crazy when he attacked the Holocaust Museum.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The guy was just looking to release his anti-semite steam, and "Obama takin' muh guns!" was all the spurring on he needed. The holocaust museum was going to be attacked, no matter what, whether it was 2nd amendment bullshit or universal healthcare coverage or the Monsanto Corp. or gay marriage.
I just think him using the 2nd Amendment thing was spectacularly ironic.
In Tiller's case, the link to O'Reilly and friends was pretty obvious. It was a clear cut case of being irresponsible in the media. The guy who shot up the Unitarian church was worked up over a specific right-wing book, so it's an easy connection to make. Both of these fall under the conservative "anti-liberal" culture that Republican pundits often see as their meal ticket.
With what's-her-name, I just don't see the direct connection. You could make the case that being a racist fucktard on TV or radio makes it easier for other people to act that way, but racism is so old and institutionalized that I can see it happening without encouragement.