|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 12, 2011 20:11:11 GMT -5
Cheech and Chong...fuck yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 12, 2011 20:14:35 GMT -5
I'm sure that has fuck all to do with illegals in America. "...But that's different" Wasn't there a rant topic in Flame & Burn about such a sentiment? Yes, yes they are. You really think opening the boarders to anyone and everyone who wants to move to the US is a good idea? There are hundreds of millions of people in 3rd world countries who would absolutely love to move to a 1st world country. You really think the economy and infrastructure is up to the task of handling such an influx of people? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 12, 2011 20:33:54 GMT -5
"...But that's different" Wasn't there a rant topic in Flame & Burn about such a sentiment? Yes, yes they are. You really think opening the boarders to anyone and everyone who wants to move to the US is a good idea? There are hundreds of millions of people in 3rd world countries who would absolutely love to move to a 1st world country. You really think the economy and infrastructure is up to the task of handling such an influx of people? I don't know about the culture of Australia, but the US has grown the most as a result of immigration, immigration has historically been a boon to us. It really goes counter to who we are as a country to deny opportunities, especially when it's being denied by people who wouldn't be here if our immigration laws then were like our immigration laws now. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 12, 2011 20:46:29 GMT -5
Yes, yes they are. You really think opening the boarders to anyone and everyone who wants to move to the US is a good idea? There are hundreds of millions of people in 3rd world countries who would absolutely love to move to a 1st world country. You really think the economy and infrastructure is up to the task of handling such an influx of people? I don't know about the culture of Australia, but the US has grown the most as a result of immigration, immigration has historically been a boon to us. It really goes counter to who we are as a country to deny opportunities, especially when it's being denied by people who wouldn't be here if our immigration laws then were like our immigration laws now. Yeah, back in revolutionary to post-industrial revolution times when America was a fledgling nation in the process of expanding to about three times its size to the pacific coast, sure, it needed all the immigrants it could get and there were rather significant opportunities for them, what with all that land for the taking. However, back in today's world, America is well established with a very respectable population density, no more room to expand and no more opportunity than any other country in the world. You are right in that historically immigrants were vital to America's expansion. However, those days are long over and now economic interests lies in keeping a much more steady population growth so as to not overwhelm the infrastructure. Seriously, why are you advocating basing immigration policy on America's needs well over a century ago? Surely you can see that's a little outdated, right? |
|
|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Oct 12, 2011 20:59:03 GMT -5
Has nobody pointed out yet that this Act involves people who did not have a choice of coming here illegal or not due to their parent's actions?
You are not American nor reside in our country. Therefore, your opinion does not matter to inner-state affairs. Me, and my people will decide how we want to run our country's affairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 12, 2011 21:23:25 GMT -5
Has nobody pointed out yet that this Act involves people who did not have a choice of coming here illegal or not due to their parent's actions? I alluded to it back on page 1 It seems kind of cruel to punish one person for the mistakes another person made. |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 13, 2011 2:31:49 GMT -5
I must admit I feel conflicted on this issue.
A lot of what Art Vandelay says is right. A countries first responsibility is to the legal citizens of that country. If a legal citizen of the country is being passed over in favor of an illegal immigrant then the government should instead be focusing on the legal citizen, as that is it responsibility as the government. However, this is a very cold and dispassionate approach.
Now I feel for the illegal immigrants who were effectively lived in America and are considered illegal because of their parents. The better option would be to find a way to make the children of illegal immigrants who have lived here most of their lives normalized. Children who have lived in the country most of their lives would have already be seen as an investment of resources by the government with regards to education they received thus far. It would make more sense to invest more into the child and have it become a legal and productive member of society.
I would rather support an initiative that made the children of illegal immigrants into legal citizens and then allowed them to qualify for their studies like any other citizen.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 13, 2011 2:58:14 GMT -5
While topics like these generally devolve into debates about the worth and sacrifices of immigrants, I see this purely from a rule-of-law perspective. Do immigrants — illegal and legal — contribute greatly to American society? Of course. Do illegal immigrants make enormous sacrifices and risks to come here? Of course. But if you want more people to immigrate here, then YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE LAW.
A country is only sovereign unless it has supreme authority to rule within a geographic perimeter. An immigrant who comes here illegally insults a country's sovereign right to control who may and may not cross its borders. Not to mention that it is an extreme insult to people who put the effort to immigrate here legally; they give off the impression that they're "special," that they are above the law, and that they don't have to wait in line like everybody else.
So would the country be better off if all these illegal immigrants were made citizens? Maybe. But this debate needs to happen in Congress. It is not the prerogative of California to give any illegal immigrant even the slightest excuse to continue their illegal stay in this country. The only help they should be giving these people is a kick in the pants across the border.
I am an American citizen doing a year-long MA program in France. I could not just hop on a plane and expect to live in this sovereign country for a year. I had to fill out tons of paperwork, amass plenty of documentation to prove I could support myself during my stay, I had to pay plenty of visa fees. Even though I had all the proper documentation, I knew that my visa could be denied for any reason whatsoever, as the French government has the full right to control who can and cannot enter France. I respected the laws of my host country and did all these steps and got a visa to live here until July of 2012. When my visa is up, I will either return to the United States or I will go through the legal steps of renewing my visa. I do not think I deserve any special treatment by the French government. If I break their laws, I expect to be punished like anybody else.
While this is certainly an unfortunate situation, it is not the responsibility of the government, nor the responsibility of citizens and legal residents, to keep track of your immigration status. It is each individual's responsibility to know his or her legal status, not the government's. If an illegal immigrant's parents brought him here when he was young, and lied to him about his place of birth, the illegal immigrant's anger is properly directed towards his [bold]parents'[/bold], not the government. Once you turn 18, you are fully responsible for your immigration status.
Congress could accomplish this by law, but California does not have the authority to grant anybody U.S. citizenship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 13, 2011 4:43:59 GMT -5
Has nobody pointed out yet that this Act involves people who did not have a choice of coming here illegal or not due to their parent's actions? I alluded to it back on page 1 It seems kind of cruel to punish one person for the mistakes another person made. You know I covered that back on page one. Also, still waiting for your answer on why you think it's a good idea to base immigration policy on what America was like over a century ago at the very least. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 13, 2011 8:13:59 GMT -5
A country is only sovereign unless it has supreme authority to rule within a geographic perimeter. An immigrant who comes here illegally insults a country's sovereign right to control who may and may not cross its borders. Not to mention that it is an extreme insult to people who put the effort to immigrate here legally; they give off the impression that they're "special," that they are above the law, and that they don't have to wait in line like everybody else. Or maybe it's because they can't afford to wait in line. Or maybe it's because they don't have a choice. It's either poverty/homelessness/murdered or break the law and hop the border. Or maybe it's because they were discriminated against in the line for whatever reason. (Not saying this happens, just saying it's a possibility) Or maybe it's because of any number of factors, not all of them kind, but I don't think "I'm special and above the law" even covers a small percentage of illegal immigrants. Quite frankly, if I had to choose between death or breaking the law, I know what I'd choose. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 13, 2011 8:25:14 GMT -5
Again Zach, no country is obligated to take in immigrants, America included. Doesn't matter what their reason is or whether or not they can use the legal channels or whatever other sob stories you have, if they immigrate illegally than the only responsibility the government has towards them is to deport them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 13, 2011 8:37:18 GMT -5
Just like a government has no obligation to provide equal rights for women and homosexuals, amirite?
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 13, 2011 8:48:39 GMT -5
Then the people have to change the law to allow for legal immigration for scenarios such as these (e.g. guest worker programs, etc.). The responsibility of the government is to apply the law systematically in all instances whatsoever under the terms of the social contract from which it operates. A person cannot unilaterally declare that "such and such a law doesn't apply to me because sob sob sob" unless the law allows for such an exception (e.g. refugee status).
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by posing this entirely irrelevant question. No government has the obligation to do anything except systematically apply the law under the terms of its social contract (aka constitution). In the United States, illegal immigrants are granted full equal protection under the law, as our Constitution requires. When they willfully and voluntarily perform an illegal action (e.g. crossing the border illegally, overstaying a visa, etc.) they have a right to a fair and speedy trial, due process, a lawyer and all the other rights that all persons within our borders are due.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 13, 2011 8:49:55 GMT -5
Just like a government has no obligation to provide equal rights for women and homosexuals, amirite? If those women and homosexuals are there legally, than yes, yes it does. It is a shame to destroy such a beautifully crafted strawman though. Why must you do that? |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 13, 2011 8:58:32 GMT -5
If people continue to respond to questions posed from a legal standpoint with answers from a moral standpoint, and to questions posed from a moral standpoint with answers from a legal standpoint, we're going to be here a long time..
|
|
