- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 113,001
- Reaction score
- 60,576
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
other/don't know
You're trapped in a confused cycle of circular reasoning that doesn't lead you to examine the actual ethical basis behind immigration restrictions to begin with, instead choosing to point to the law without actual logical analysis of it. That would be a poor choice if one wanted to claim that civil rights era blacks' violation of Jim Crow laws was evidence of their criminality and justification for racially discriminatory legal policy against them, and it's a poor choice in this case also.
Bull****!
There is an appearance of circular logic, but in fact it is not if you examine it closely. I am saying that to choose to enter the country illegally, you are showing a willingness to ignore the laws of this country for personal gain. This alone makes you unfit to be allowed to become a citizen. I am all for legal immigration, and have no problem with it being expanded significantly. What I do not like is people who choose to violate laws for personal comfort.
To put it another way, I think that some one who has broken laws in this country should be ineligible for citizenship/extended work visas. This includes murder, rape, robbery, fraud, and entering the country illegally. You are latching onto the one, and not seeing the totality.
There is an appearance of circular logic, but in fact it is not if you examine it closely. I am saying that to choose to enter the country illegally, you are showing a willingness to ignore the laws of this country for personal gain. This alone makes you unfit to be allowed to become a citizen. I am all for legal immigration, and have no problem with it being expanded significantly. What I do not like is people who choose to violate laws for personal comfort.
To put it another way, I think that some one who has broken laws in this country should be ineligible for citizenship/extended work visas. This includes murder, rape, robbery, fraud, and entering the country illegally. You are latching onto the one, and not seeing the totality.
His analogy makes sense though. The black people who refused to give up their seats on buses to white people were breaking the law too. Is that not showing a willingness to ignore the laws of the country for personal gain?
The only distinction that I can see is that you think segregation laws were wrong, but do not feel that way about illegal immigration laws. But this still does not explain why.
And as noted, that's an extremely flimsy premise. There's no ethical basis behind immigration restrictions to begin with, so violation of them is hardly consequently unethical, just as violation of Jim Crow laws was hardly consequently unethical, nor was it indicative of a willingness to violate ethically legitimate laws.
Then you'd have nothing that would warrant particularly widespread policy guidelines, considering that allegations of widespread immigrant criminality are largely mythical in nature.
Yes, but they where already citizens, so that could not be denied them. They where criminals, and prosecuting them under the laws was appropriate, as was changing those laws.
Saying that people used civil disobedience so we should not have passed civil rights legislation...well, if that is your contention, that is a highly inaccurate analogy.
OK, then let's use a hypothetical example instead of an historical example: Suppose that everyone in Congress gets drunk one night and passes a law making it a crime for any non-citizen to wear T-shirts with silly phrases on them. When there are protests, some people say that the law should not be changed because it rewards lawbreakers.
Do you see any problem with this argument? It offers no rational explanation for why such a thing should be a crime in the first place.
Yes, but they where already citizens, so that could not be denied them.
They where criminals, and prosecuting them under the laws was appropriate, as was changing those laws.
Saying that people used civil disobedience so we should not have passed civil rights legislation...well, if that is your contention, that is a highly inaccurate analogy.
It is too easy to attain a social sec # illegitimately and simply write that in on an I-9 and fulfill the requirements to snow an employer into hiring illegals.
Yes there is an ethical basis for such restrictions. We as a country are perfectly allowed to choose whether to allow immigration and how much to allow, whatever is in our best interest. It is unethical of people to not respect the laws of the land they want to live in.
Illegal immigrants are criminals by definition. There is believed to be > 10 million in this country. Sounds widespread to me.
The reason it is a crime in the first place is that there are processes to enter the country, and requirements for citizenship/work visas and all that. An illegal ignores those processes.
There's no legitimate basis for ethical comparison between murder, rape, and robbery and illegal entry into a country.
This is, at it's most basic, the heart of the issue I think. To me there is a definite comparison. They are all illegal acts.
Should illegal aliens be offered Amnesty, semi-amnesty(paying fines or working for forgiveness), or not allowed amnesty.
This question is a redirect from here, where we have gotten way off topic and onto this: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/57386-libertarian-issues.html
poll is up.
Illegality is not a basis for ethical comparison, unless you believe that violation of Jim Crow laws is morally equivalent to murder, as mentioned.
We have no reason at all to import a lower-class of seasonal workers from other countries while Generation X-Box has the highest unemployment rate in history for young people.
No amnesty period. If you reward illegal immigration you encourage it, just look at the Reagan Amnesty.
I am not discussing ethics, I am discussing legalities. Entering the country illegally is a crime. There is a legal path to citizenship. I believe in rewarding those who adhere to our laws, and punish those who do not adhere to our laws. Your whole Jim Crow law thing is simply misdirection.
I doubt there are many Generation X-Boxers who are willing to pick strawberries in the sweltering sun for a couple dollars an hour.
I doubt there are many Generation X-Boxers who are willing to pick strawberries in the sweltering sun for a couple dollars an hour.
This may be the longest sentence I've seen all year.. . .? Aside from the fact that many Latin American illegal immigrants are Amerindian mestizos whose poor economic conditions have been inherited from a violent European invasion and colonization of America and the centuries of racial segregation and discrimination that were to follow, recent history has been marked by governmental establishment of trade liberalization and the expansion of U.S.-based agricultural companies into Mexico that has uprooted and displaced farmers and associated laborers into urban areas, and then into the U.S. itself due to the vastly inequitable wage differentials between the U.S. and Mexico.
Immigration both legal and illegal is primarily caused by the displacement of agricultural laborers and those uprooted by that displacement in Mexico, which was itself caused by the expansion of trade liberalization.
Focus on immigrants themselves is a mere red herring designed to function as a distraction from the reality that the wealthy financiers that have invested in this liberalization effort are far more responsible for illegal immigration than corn farmers are. This in turn leads to ignorance of the facts that there are unjustly inequitable wage differentials between the U.S. and Mexico and that there is a disproportionately high demand for unskilled labor in the U.S., and the manipulation of public policy according to the interests of the financial class..
We have no reason at all to import a lower-class of seasonal workers from other countries while Generation X-Box has the highest unemployment rate in history for young people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?