Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)

  • 390 Replies
  • 22497 Views
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #330 on: July 30, 2010, 12:15:38 PM »
Morally, it's unfair to the thousands of legal immigrants who went through the system, as well as the hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants who are declined a visa each year, due to the INS's strict requirements on who gets to immigrate here.  You would essentially be allowing anyone from Mexico to simply sidestep those requirements, when everyone else has to follow them.
See, I don't buy this line of logic. It essentially translates to "We should keep past policies that have been shown, numerous times, to be ineffective, just so no one gets their feelings hurt". Would you prefer we return to the flawed quota system which lasted from the 1920's to the 1960's?. Also, I am not saying that just Mexicans should get amnesty, I am supporting it for all immigrants. This policy is an even handed approach, much like modern proponents of harsh immigration policies claim of their policies.

But this will apply almost entirely to Mexicans, for the obvious fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in America have come from Mexico.  A law can be discriminatory in practice as well as in writing.  In answer to your question, no, I'm not necessarily defending quotas, but whatever laws that this country uses need to be consistent.  And on the subject of "ineffective policies", amnesty has been tried before, and has done nothing to slow or stop illegal immigration.

Quote
Also, and more importantly, amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration.  If a behavior is rewarded, then it will be repeated.
To begin, that's not even true. In a surprisingly similarity to another thread, when drug use in Portugal was decriminalized, the amount of drugs used went down. Legalizing something does not always mean an increase in it.

First of all, comparing drug use and illegal immigration is ridiculous, and you know it.  Second, are you really trying to tell me that the treatment of illegal immigrants here in America will have no effect on what potential immigrants in Mexico think about hopping the border?

Quote
Second, what's wrong with an increase in immigrants? If they are made citizens, the government will protect their right to a minimum wage. There will no longer be incentive to hire them over any other worker. And, if these families suddenly experience a rise in income, they will spend more money. More consumer spending creates further jobs, which allows more employment, which allows more consumer spending, which bolsters the economy.

To be honest, I don't know.  I would like to see some immigration reform, but I just don't think that a blanket amnesty is the best way to go.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #331 on: July 30, 2010, 02:11:46 PM »
Quote
But this will apply almost entirely to Mexicans, for the obvious fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in America have come from Mexico.  A law can be discriminatory in practice as well as in writing.  In answer to your question, no, I'm not necessarily defending quotas, but whatever laws that this country uses need to be consistent.  And on the subject of "ineffective policies", amnesty has been tried before, and has done nothing to slow or stop illegal immigration.
I agree that blanket amnesty would apply mostly to Mexicans. So do current immigration policies, so that is clearly not a problem. I wasn't aware of any modern, major, developed nations trying complete immigration amnesty. Mind citing an example?

Quote
First of all, comparing drug use and illegal immigration is ridiculous, and you know it.  Second, are you really trying to tell me that the treatment of illegal immigrants here in America will have no effect on what potential immigrants in Mexico think about hopping the border?
Shitty quality of life here is clearly not stopping immigrants already, and neither is the threat of law. Why continue with both of them, if they're expensive, and immoral?

Quote
Quote
Second, what's wrong with an increase in immigrants?
To be honest, I don't know. 
Here's a hint: The Southwest is filled with r_cists. Fill in the blank.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #332 on: July 30, 2010, 02:57:31 PM »
I agree that blanket amnesty would apply mostly to Mexicans. So do current immigration policies, so that is clearly not a problem.

No, they don't.  Border security policies are obviously aimed mostly at Mexico, but there's nothing in our laws on legal immigration that state that Mexican immigrants can do x, as opposed to other immigrants that can do y, or the like.

Quote
I wasn't aware of any modern, major, developed nations trying complete immigration amnesty. Mind citing an example?

Actually, I'm referring to America.  President Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law in 1986.  Here's an article about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washington/23amnesty.html?_r=1

Quote
Shitty quality of life here is clearly not stopping immigrants already, and neither is the threat of law. Why continue with both of them, if they're expensive, and immoral?

How do you know that nobody is being deterred?  We don't know how many would-be immigrants have decided to stay home rather than make the trip.  But in any case, there's a difference between lack of discouragement and actual encouragement.  Even if tough immigration laws don't discourage immigrants from trying to cross the border, your plan will actually encourage them.  Also, I disagree with you that these laws are "immoral".

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #333 on: July 30, 2010, 03:38:53 PM »
No, they don't.  Border security policies are obviously aimed mostly at Mexico, but there's nothing in our laws on legal immigration that state that Mexican immigrants can do x, as opposed to other immigrants that can do y, or the like.
I was primarily referring to the Arizona law. While it claims not being racist, it will affect almost exclusively Mexicans.
Quote
Actually, I'm referring to America.  President Reagan signed an amnesty bill into law in 1986.  Here's an article about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/washington/23amnesty.html?_r=1
Interesting. However, it appeared that the government failed to enforce proper hiring practices. I concede that blanket amnesty only works if the government is willing to enforce the law. Also, in classic Washington fashion, it killed it with too much bureaucracy. When you're dealing with a population of people who may not speak English, excessive paperwork is an insane idea. It appears, then, that it failed due to poor implementation, not because it's a flawed policy.

Quote
How do you know that nobody is being deterred?  We don't know how many would-be immigrants have decided to stay home rather than make the trip.  But in any case, there's a difference between lack of discouragement and actual encouragement.  Even if tough immigration laws don't discourage immigrants from trying to cross the border, your plan will actually encourage them.  Also, I disagree with you that these laws are "immoral".
[/quote]
I'm not supporting encouraging them. I'm supporting apathy. I, for one, believe forcing people to work for under drastically under minimum wage to be immoral.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #334 on: September 20, 2010, 02:22:13 PM »
I am bumping this thread.

I was primarily referring to the Arizona law. While it claims not being racist, it will affect almost exclusively Mexicans.

Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.

Quote
I'm not supporting encouraging them. I'm supporting apathy. I, for one, believe forcing people to work for under drastically under minimum wage to be immoral.

Giving illegal immigrants citizenship is exactly what they want.  How is that not encouraging them?

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #335 on: September 20, 2010, 02:57:02 PM »
Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.
What the shitting fuck? What you're saying actually helps prove my point: The current system makes it easier for Mexicans to sneak in the country than other nationalities. I am supporting amnesty for all people, leveling the playing field.

Giving illegal immigrants citizenship is exactly what they want.  How is that not encouraging them?
It's a well documented social behavior and consequence that legalizing, or turning something illegal, does not always encourage it or discourage it, respectively. The drug use in Portugal is a great example of legalizing a "frowned upon and illegal behavior", with no increase in the negative behavior. Also, I'm pretty sure I do not need to point out the numerous historical instances of unintended side effects from turning things illegal.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #336 on: September 20, 2010, 03:34:41 PM »
Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.
What the shitting fuck? What you're saying actually helps prove my point: The current system makes it easier for Mexicans to sneak in the country than other nationalities. I am supporting amnesty for all people, leveling the playing field.

Are you suggesting open borders, then?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #337 on: September 20, 2010, 06:30:15 PM »
Here's a hint: The Southwest is filled with r_cists. Fill in the blank.

I disagree. The South and Southeast are far more racist.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #338 on: September 20, 2010, 07:06:57 PM »
Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.
What the shitting fuck? What you're saying actually helps prove my point: The current system makes it easier for Mexicans to sneak in the country than other nationalities. I am supporting amnesty for all people, leveling the playing field.

Are you suggesting open borders, then?

A nation without borders is hardly a nation at all.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #339 on: September 20, 2010, 07:22:03 PM »
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.

Didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but I know that in addition to this, they can immediately deport you. Phone calls are rights of US citizens, but if they assume you aren't a citizen you have no rights. My Native American teacher was talking about this when we got into talking about his reservation.

A nation without borders is hardly a nation at all.
Um, why?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2010, 07:24:51 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #340 on: September 20, 2010, 08:20:59 PM »
Yes, because most illegal immigrants are Mexicans.  The government can hardly deport people who aren't here.  What you are suggesting, however, is a system that will give Mexicans an unfair advantage over other prospective immigrants.  It is much easier to creep over the Mexican-American border than it is to sneak into the country via, say, planes or boats.
What the shitting fuck? What you're saying actually helps prove my point: The current system makes it easier for Mexicans to sneak in the country than other nationalities. I am supporting amnesty for all people, leveling the playing field.

Are you suggesting open borders, then?
Yes.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 44035
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #341 on: September 21, 2010, 09:09:31 AM »
Here's a hint: The Southwest is filled with r_cists. Fill in the blank.

I disagree. The South and Southeast are far more racist.

He didn't say the Southwest was the most racist, he said it was filled with racists. The entire world is filled with racists, the South is no more racist than the rest, but perhaps southerners are more open about it.  It just makes Yankees feel better about themselves to think it is, while they whisper "nigger" behind some black person's back.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #342 on: September 21, 2010, 11:47:23 AM »
Protip: This allows police officers to pull over specific ethnicity and detain them if they do not have passports/birth certificates on their person (without any evidence, just off the street). They will not be allowed to contact family while being detained. The law open up shittons of room for police abuse, and this being Arizona (home of Joe Arpaio), it will be abused.

It will be challenged, brought to the Supreme Court, and defeated.

Also, Racial profiling is institutionalized racism, pure and simple. Interesting to see that you're throwing in with their kind.

Didn't read the rest of the thread yet, but I know that in addition to this, they can immediately deport you. Phone calls are rights of US citizens, but if they assume you aren't a citizen you have no rights. My Native American teacher was talking about this when we got into talking about his reservation.

Mykael isn't actually right.  The law allows police to detain people if they have "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally.  If a case based on this law is ever challenged, then the courts will define reasonable suspicion, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled before that race and ethnicity are not valid evidence of any wrongdoing, so I find it highly unlikely that this law will permit racial profiling.

As for your teacher, well, I don't want to act like I know better than him or anything, but I'm not really sure what he's talking about.  The Bill of Rights lists natural rights given to all people by God, or nature, or whatever.  They apply to all people, not just Americans.  And the "one phone call" rule is an urban legend promoted by movies.  There are very rarely set rules that apply to use of the phone.  Some police will let you phone your lawyer, some will insist that they do the calling themselves.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #343 on: September 21, 2010, 02:05:16 PM »
I'm pretty sure there is a racist law he was referring to, (not sure if it was one covered in the topic or not, not whether it was state level, federal level, or applied only on the reservation). But apparently, it hasn't been brought to the Supreme court yet... just like Texas' laws discriminating against atheists for politicians hasn't been brought before the Supreme Court.

However, he was the primary source not me, so I really can't defend or critique any further.  :P
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #344 on: September 21, 2010, 02:08:42 PM »
Um, why?

The best definition of a State (in the broad sense) is from Max Weber.

Quote from: Politics as a Vocation
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force  within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #345 on: September 21, 2010, 02:17:12 PM »
Um, why?

The best definition of a State (in the broad sense) is from Max Weber.

Quote from: Politics as a Vocation
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force  within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Hmm, That seems like a rather loose fit.
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #346 on: September 21, 2010, 02:21:41 PM »
Well, there's more to the argument but that's the tagline. And I don't think that's what Wardogg was arguing for (stricter boarders) in that exact post. I'm sure he argues for that, but his argument that a state (the US is not a 'nation') requires boarders is valid.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #347 on: September 21, 2010, 03:04:53 PM »
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.

But there always has been some form of border control.  It's only become an issue in recent years because of the increase in illegal immigration, and therefore the increase in security at the borders.  Our immigration process is complex and selective not out of racism, but out of necessity.  Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #348 on: September 21, 2010, 04:48:00 PM »
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.

But there always has been some form of border control.  It's only become an issue in recent years because of the increase in illegal immigration, and therefore the increase in security at the borders.  Our immigration process is complex and selective not out of racism, but out of necessity.  Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.

I never said that there wasn't always some form of border control, nor did I ever say that I was proposing open borders.  ???
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #349 on: September 22, 2010, 06:37:46 AM »
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.

But there always has been some form of border control.  It's only become an issue in recent years because of the increase in illegal immigration, and therefore the increase in security at the borders.  Our immigration process is complex and selective not out of racism, but out of necessity.  Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.

I never said that there wasn't always some form of border control, nor did I ever say that I was proposing open borders.  ???

But Wardogg simply said that a nation without borders isn't a nation at all.  You apparently seemed to interpret that as "stricter border control".  Also, the "open borders" comment was more directed at Franklin.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #350 on: September 22, 2010, 07:14:44 PM »
Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.
Do you really think our current system does anything like that? All it is doing is forcing the "undesirables" (brown skinned people) to come in illegally, making them not protected by minimum wage laws, causing resentment and hatred because they're "stealing our jerbs".

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #351 on: September 23, 2010, 03:09:44 AM »
Without it, we have no way of screening out undesirables, like welfare slobs, criminals, or possibly even terrorists.  "Open borders" is just not a feasible option.
Do you really think our current system does anything like that? All it is doing is forcing the "undesirables" (brown skinned people) to come in illegally, making them not protected by minimum wage laws, causing resentment and hatred because they're "stealing our jerbs".

hyperbole be here
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Arizona's bill on immigration.
« Reply #352 on: September 23, 2010, 04:31:37 AM »
Um, why?

The best definition of a State (in the broad sense) is from Max Weber.

Quote from: Politics as a Vocation
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force  within a given territory. Note that 'territory' is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is considered the sole source of the 'right' to use violence. Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state.
Hmm, That seems like a rather loose fit.
Also Wardogg, to imply that America is not a nation without stricter border control, is to imply that America was not a nation before the very recent past.

If there were no borders...then all of North America would be,  The Canadian States of Mexico.  Sounds fun.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #353 on: September 23, 2010, 02:09:01 PM »
Do you really think our current system does anything like that?

Yes, it does.  A background check is performed on all prospective immigrants to make sure that they don't have a criminal record, that they can speak English, that they have or can find a job, etc.  If someone bypasses the system by illegally slipping into the country, then obviously they can't be investigated first.

Quote
All it is doing is forcing the "undesirables" (brown skinned people)

"Brown skinned people"?  Once again, the rules on immigration are the same for people of every nationality.  I don't know why you keep insisting that race is somehow an important factor.  Our policies on immigration were not written by a bunch of rednecks.

Quote
to come in illegally, making them not protected by minimum wage laws

Well, yeah.  I agree it's disgusting how they're being manipulated by greedy businesspeople, but seeing how illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be in this country or working here in the first place, there isn't much we can do that doesn't also involve deporting them.  That kind of argument is akin to suggesting that because prostitutes are exploited and paid very little by pimps, prostitution should become legal.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #354 on: September 23, 2010, 04:25:39 PM »
Yes, it does.  A background check is performed on all prospective immigrants to make sure that they don't have a criminal record, that they can speak English, that they have or can find a job, etc.  If someone bypasses the system by illegally slipping into the country, then obviously they can't be investigated first.
So, as it appears, we agree that it's simply forcing the legitimate citizens to go through bureaucracy, while the "undesirables" simply sneak in and cause the current issues that I've covered numerous times.
Well, yeah.  I agree it's disgusting how they're being manipulated by greedy businesspeople, but seeing how illegal immigrants aren't supposed to be in this country or working here in the first place, there isn't much we can do that doesn't also involve deporting them.
Can you give a single moral reason as to why they shouldn't be here? Also, deporting all the illegal immigrants is just short of impossible, and far past economically viable.

there isn't much we can do that doesn't also involve deporting them.
What about legitimizing them, and protecting them with the power of the law?
That kind of argument is akin to suggesting that because prostitutes are exploited and paid very little by pimps, prostitution should become legal.
It is much easier for a prostitute to get a legitimate job than an illegal immigrant to get a legitimate job. Also, while this is slightly off-topic, prostitutes are hardly "exploited and under-paid"*, while illegal immigrants are.

* Source: Super Freakonomics

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #355 on: September 23, 2010, 05:43:57 PM »
Can you give a single moral reason as to why they shouldn't be here? Also, deporting all the illegal immigrants is just short of impossible, and far past economically viable.

Certainly, because no matter what they think of the laws of this nation and their homeland, they have a moral obligation to obey those laws. Protesting against them and attempting to change the law is one thing, but until said laws are changed, to wantonly attempt to circumvent them is quite obviously immoral.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #356 on: September 23, 2010, 05:45:55 PM »
I either assume that laws = morals, or that civil disobedience is immoral. Either way, I'm obviously an idiot.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #357 on: September 24, 2010, 09:23:35 AM »
I either assume that laws = morals, or that civil disobedience is immoral. Either way, I'm obviously an idiot.
Way to woefully exaggerate my argument in a attempt to prop up yours.  Whats that called again?

Laws certainly are not morals, since laws themselves can have both moral and immoral ideas at their core.  However, opposition to an immoral law (as viewed by an individual or group) cannot morally take the form of ignoring the law wantonly.  First, if you truly believe that a particular law is wrong, you have an obligation to your fellow man to oppose it in a manner that rationally and plausibly has a chance of modifying or revoking it (or conversely, enacting a law you believe in).  Simply ignoring the law is both counter-productive (It often gives ammunition to the other side, for example), and blatantly selfish.

Second, ignoring a law enacted by society demonstrates an uncivilized level of ego-centrism by assuming that the belief of the person is absolute.  This nation has one of the highest levels of political and ideological freedom ever known to man, and the process allows grass roots political action to have far greater effect than it has in most nations.  From a soap box in the park, to the blogosphere, the capability of people to have direct impact on policy in this day and age is unmatched.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #358 on: September 24, 2010, 02:37:01 PM »
So, as it appears, we agree that it's simply forcing the legitimate citizens to go through bureaucracy, while the "undesirables" simply sneak in and cause the current issues that I've covered numerous times.

"Simply" is not the word that I would have chosen.  Thousands of people are denied access to the United States every year, and many more are caught on the border trying to sneak in.  Also, not all prospective immigrants live in a country with a large border to this one, making illegal entry extremely difficult.  Of course our border security isn't perfect, and it never will be.  But to label them as useless just because they don't have a 100% arrest rate, is, quite frankly, immature.

Quote
Can you give a single moral reason as to why they shouldn't be here?

It's not about morals, it's about duty to society.  In a perfect world, everyone could happily live the American Dream in peace and harmony, but that's just not feasible.  As well as the security concerns, there are also economic problems.  Simply opening up the floodgates would flood America's population well past sustainability.  Again, there's no inherent reason that we, as Americans, deserve the benefits of citizenship; it's simply the luck of the draw.

Quote
What about legitimizing them, and protecting them with the power of the law?

The necessity of enforcing our immigration laws outweighs our obligation to make sure that certain criminals are treating other criminals nicely.

*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12993
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Immigration/Border Policies (Arizona Bill)
« Reply #359 on: September 24, 2010, 07:25:12 PM »
Laws certainly are not morals, since laws themselves can have both moral and immoral ideas at their core.  However, opposition to an immoral law (as viewed by an individual or group) cannot morally take the form of ignoring the law wantonly.  First, if you truly believe that a particular law is wrong, you have an obligation to your fellow man to oppose it in a manner that rationally and plausibly has a chance of modifying or revoking it (or conversely, enacting a law you believe in).  Simply ignoring the law is both counter-productive (It often gives ammunition to the other side, for example), and blatantly selfish.
I feel this is drifting into a totally different topic, one about civil disobedience,  and that's not what I think the OP wants. I don't want to appear to be ignoring your argument, so feel free to create another thread.
Second, ignoring a law enacted by society demonstrates an uncivilized level of ego-centrism by assuming that the belief of the person is absolute.  This nation has one of the highest levels of political and ideological freedom ever known to man, and the process allows grass roots political action to have far greater effect than it has in most nations.  From a soap box in the park, to the blogosphere, the capability of people to have direct impact on policy in this day and age is unmatched.
It's cute that you think people actually have their own views enacted. The fear-mongering news and politicians can sway the public well enough to render any legitimately good ideas ignored. However, I'd like to refer back to my first response. If you'd like to discuss the issue in further depth, feel free to make a new thread.

Quote
"Simply" is not the word that I would have chosen.  Thousands of people are denied access to the United States every year, and many more are caught on the border trying to sneak in.  Also, not all prospective immigrants live in a country with a large border to this one, making illegal entry extremely difficult.  Of course our border security isn't perfect, and it never will be.  But to label them as useless just because they don't have a 100% arrest rate, is, quite frankly, immature.
It's quite clear that we aren't doing a well enough job with our current system. I'm not asking for a 100% arrest rate, but if there's too many illegal immigrants to the point they are causing the problems that many politicians are claiming, then we need a new system.

Quote
It's not about morals, it's about duty to society.  In a perfect world, everyone could happily live the American Dream in peace and harmony, but that's just not feasible.  As well as the security concerns, there are also economic problems.  Simply opening up the floodgates would flood America's population well past sustainability.  Again, there's no inherent reason that we, as Americans, deserve the benefits of citizenship; it's simply the luck of the draw.
Hardly. Illegal immigrants already have jobs: If they got legitimized and protected by laws, primarily regarding minimum wage, they would have enough money to buy goods beyond basic needs, and that would create jobs. The other immigrants would get the jobs, spend money, create more jobs, and we continue on an upward spiral. Also, I fail to see how my "duty to society" of forcing people to work in dangerous, near-slavery conditions trumps basic morals.

Quote
The necessity of enforcing our immigration laws outweighs our obligation to make sure that certain criminals are treating other criminals nicely.
I was speaking of protecting them from manipulating business man moreso, but protecting people from force is also important. It's quite clear, to me, that helping our fellow man who wants to better himself is more important than laws designed to keep "different" people from touching our ground.