|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 13, 2011 9:06:39 GMT -5
My point is that there is nothing wrong with having a moral viewpoint, but in order to enforce this moral viewpoint, you must enact it into law under the terms that our society has collectively developed. Morality is too personal. To say that in one person's opinion, illegal immigrants have a moral right to break immigration laws, is to put a certain moral belief above the rule of law. If your moral belief has enough of a following, you should have no problem legislating that position into law. If you don't have enough of a following, then you are seeking to impose your moral beliefs onto society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 13, 2011 9:13:23 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? Maybe you should actually examine my argument before you condemn it as a strawman. Else you create a strawman of your own. See, your response to illegal immigrants is that "They're here illegally, so deport them." At the same time, when I posed the question about women driving in Middle Eastern countries, when it is illegal, you went "But that's different." Which, as I believe a certain rant thread once said, was considered to be quite a disingenuous train of thought. No, it isn't different. Both are breaking the law, yet one breaks the law in a way YOU favor. In other words, you're a hypocrite. Both are simultaneously legal and moral issues. Illegal immigrants being allowed to stay here... women being allowed to drive... both are human rights issues. Last I checked, when the law violates human rights, that law is considered to be bad. And in my opinion, blind deportation without any regard to the deportee's economic or health situation is a violation of human rights. Key word: HUMAN rights. As in, rights all humans should have access to regardless of country or class. Yes, I support changing the law to make it easier to allow illegal immigrants access to citizenship. And I believe that THIS particular change is a step in the right direction. You can't claim that you want the law to be changed, and then oppose changes to the law. That's disingenuous. My point is that there is nothing wrong with having a moral viewpoint, but in order to enforce this moral viewpoint, you must enact it into law under the terms that our society has collectively developed So then, why do you support opposition to such changes? In all honesty, this opposition to the act REEKS of the Prop 8 propaganda. Only it's coming from people that are considered liberal. I am disappoint. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 13, 2011 9:23:11 GMT -5
Then you have to change the law to create this human right in the United States of America. As the Constitution states, Congress has the power to regulate naturalization. No one has a human right to enter the United States except United States citizens and legal residents.
Human rights/civil rights/constitutional rights (whatever you wish to call them) are not pre-formed. There is no god who has an exhaustive list of every single right that every person is owed by their government, some of which we just haven't discovered yet. From where our rights derive is linked to the philosophy of where a government's sovereignty is derived. In the United States, this philosophy is popular sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States derives from We the People, and we vest some of our sovereignty in the states who in turn vest some of their sovereignty in the federal government. We have a system in place that is designed to recognize and protect our rights, as well as a system to add or remove rights as we please.
(While I understand that the Declaration of Independence states a belief that our "Creator" endows us with inalienable rights, practically speaking this is an unsupportable position. You must be able to prove that not only that there is a Creator but that you have seen his/her exhaustive list of all "human rights" in existence. Anyone can claim that God endows us with a right to do x and others can claim that God endows us with a right to do y, and that our government is denying us that right. Indeed, rights do not come from God, but are granted to us by ourselves, in the manner as prescribed by the social contract we have adopted to run our society.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 9:24:56 GMT -5
I alluded to it back on page 1 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. 1) It wasn't over a century ago, we also had a nice surge during the 20th century after WWI. 2) You overestimate the denseness of our population. 3) Our economy actually relies upon immigrants and without them, there are problems, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 13, 2011 9:30:42 GMT -5
Then you have to change the law to create this human right in the United States of America. As the Constitution states, Congress has the power to regulate naturalization. No one has a human right to enter the United States except United States citizens and legal residents. Human rights/civil rights/constitutional rights (whatever you wish to call them) are not pre-formed. There is no god who has an exhaustive list of every single right that every person is owed by their government, some of which we just haven't discovered yet. From where our rights derive is linked to the philosophy of where a government's sovereignty is derived. In the United States, this philosophy is popular sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States derives from We the People, and we vest some of our sovereignty in the states who in turn vest some of their sovereignty in the federal government. We have a system in place that is designed to recognize and protect our rights, as well as a system to add or remove rights as we please. (While I understand that the Declaration of Independence states a belief that our "Creator" endows us with inalienable rights, practically speaking this is an unsupportable position. You must be able to prove that not only that there is a Creator but that you have seen his/her exhaustive list of all "human rights" in existence. Anyone can claim that God endows us with a right to do x and others can claim that God endows us with a right to do y, and that our government is denying us that right. Indeed, rights do not come from God, but are granted to us by ourselves, in the manner as prescribed by the social contract we have adopted to run our society.) You keep saying this, yet you started this topic out of opposition to such a change. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 13, 2011 9:31:42 GMT -5
I am opposed to the law because California is giving government assistance to people who are not here legally, they are not granting these people legal residency, and even if this law were doing that, California does not have the authority to do this, only Congress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 13, 2011 9:34:12 GMT -5
Maybe you should actually examine my argument before you condemn it as a strawman. Else you create a strawman of your own. See, your response to illegal immigrants is that "They're here illegally, so deport them." At the same time, when I posed the question about women driving in Middle Eastern countries, when it is illegal, you went "But that's different." Which, as I believe a certain rant thread once said, was considered to be quite a disingenuous train of thought. No, it isn't different. Both are breaking the law, yet one breaks the law in a way YOU favor. In other words, you're a hypocrite. Well see, I can make the same argument you know. Say, you support illegals breaking the law and staying in their new country of residence. Does that mean you also support murderers and rapists too? Both are breaking the law, yet only one is breaking a law YOU favour. You're totally a hypocrite!! Believe it or not, I have reasons why I support a tighter immigration policy than "let anyone and everyone who wants to come in to come on in" for reasons other than "it's just the law". If you want to go into those reasons in detail, I'd be more than happy to. However, if you're just going to assume that I'm saying "it's just the law" and other such asininity, I'm going to mock you, k? Both are simultaneously legal and moral issues. Illegal immigrants being allowed to stay here... women being allowed to drive... both are human rights issues. Not quite. There are also economic and social issues to consider too you know. Believe it or not morals are not the only thing that matter, especially when it comes to things like immigration policy. I'm quite surprised that you can be so naive that you don't seem to realise that. Last I checked, when the law violates human rights, that law is considered to be bad. And in my opinion, blind deportation without any regard to the deportee's economic or health situation is a violation of human rights. Key word: HUMAN rights. As in, rights all humans should have access to regardless of country or class. Last I checked, entry into the country of your choice is not a human right. Like it or not, even if the American government decided it's within their interests to close the boarders completely that wouldn't in itself constitute a human rights violation. Yes, I support changing the law to make it easier to allow illegal immigrants access to citizenship. And I believe that THIS particular change is a step in the right direction. Believe it or not, nobody's claiming you believe otherwise. You can't claim that you want the law to be changed, and then oppose changes to the law. That's disingenuous. ...Er, yes I damn well can if the changes aren't the changes I was in favour of in the first place. Why the hell do I need to explain that?! |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 13, 2011 9:42:24 GMT -5
You know what, this argument is pointless.
One person is absolutely set on screwing over people that he's dehumanized, and the other person is saying "You should make changes if you want this. Oh, but not THIS change. But you should make changes. Just not any changes I disagree with."
And neither are even American in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 13, 2011 9:50:58 GMT -5
1) It wasn't over a century ago, we also had a nice surge during the 20th century after WWI. Not quite the same considering the surge was nothing compared to the westward expansion, the booming postwar economy could handle the influx of people (though that quickly changed when the 30s rolled around) and there were still boarder controls and the usual picking and choosing of who can come in and who can't. 2) You overestimate the denseness of our population. 32 people per km 2. 3) Our economy actually relies upon immigrants and without them, there are problems, for example.So 11 thousand unfilled farming positions would mean $1bn in lost revenue eh? Well, here's a crazy idea. Given the almost 10% unemployment, wouldn't you say the solution here is to raise the minimum wage for farm workers to something that citizens will consider worth their while? Hell, with extra billion the farmers stand to make by filling those positions, they can easily afford it. Furthermore, you know the argument for a certain sector's reliance on near slave labour is pretty much the exact same argument used to justify slavery back in the day, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 13, 2011 9:56:17 GMT -5
You know what, this argument is pointless. One person is absolutely set on screwing over people that he's dehumanized, and the other person is saying "You should make changes if you want this. Oh, but not THIS change. But you should make changes. Just not any changes I disagree with." And neither are even American in the first place. Now Zacho, what did I say about destroying perfectly good strawmen. There's just no need for that behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 10:03:23 GMT -5
1) It wasn't over a century ago, we also had a nice surge during the 20th century after WWI. Not quite the same considering the surge was nothing compared to the westward expansion, the booming postwar economy could handle the influx of people (though that quickly changed when the 30s rolled around) and there were still boarder controls and the usual picking and choosing of who can come in and who can't. The current policy is clearly not working, so only a fool would think it's a good idea to leave it unchanged. Cute, too bad that figure ignores how, despite how the east coast is densely populated, the states west of the Mississippi River have a lot of uninhabited land, and not because the land isn't usable (like in California!). I'm sorry, but California is not able to do those things, California has very limited power. Your proposal could potentially work, if it was done nationally. If California tried it, then they would not be able to sell their food on the national market due to higher costs. But, this is peripheral to the point, which is that illegal immigrants are currently contributing to US society, and since they are contributing (and adding more than they take, might I add), it's only proper to give them a pathway to citizenship. And unlike Georgia's attempt, I bet that California's attempt won't lose them money. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 13, 2011 10:23:22 GMT -5
Cute, too bad that figure ignores how, despite how the east coast is densely populated, the states west of the Mississippi River have a lot of uninhabited land, and not because the land isn't usable (like in California!). True, but the growth can easily be filled by legal immigrants. Hell, due to the fact that America has so many willing immigrants they can pick and choose highly educated candidates. It's not as though there's such a shortage of people that you need to start naturalising illegals. I'm sorry, but California is not able to do those things, California has very limited power. Your proposal could potentially work, if it was done nationally. If California tried it, then they would not be able to sell their food on the national market due to higher costs. But, this is peripheral to the point, which is that illegal immigrants are currently contributing to US society, and since they are contributing (and adding more than they take, might I add), it's only proper to give them a pathway to citizenship. And unlike Georgia's attempt, I bet that California's attempt won't lose them money. Firstly, so do it nationally. Secondly, illegals may be contributing to the economy, but only because they're not subject to minimum wage and workplace safety laws. If they were naturalised, than they'd lose than and simply add to the rather large pool of unskilled and unemployed Americans. Furthermore, if your farming sector really can't function without pseudo-slave labour (which I'm rather sceptical of, seeing as plenty of other countries manage just fine without it) there are better ways to get it. Worker exchange programs, for example, mean you can bring them in for the harvest and send them back when they're done. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 10:32:36 GMT -5
Oh, I'm sure it can function without it, but one state can't do it, it has to be a federal thing. It is disingenuous to propose a federal law as an alternative to a state law. You're also not giving any sort of proposal for a way to limit the flow of illegal immigrants into the US. Deporting them really doesn't stop it, more come and the ones that were deported just come back. Instead you are advocating a sort of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again while hoping for different results.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 13, 2011 10:46:26 GMT -5
Oh, I'm sure it can function without it, but one state can't do it, it has to be a federal thing. It is disingenuous to propose a federal law as an alternative to a state law. How? Last I checked, federal law trumps state, not the other way around. You're also not giving any sort of proposal for a way to limit the flow of illegal immigrants into the US. Deporting them really doesn't stop it, more come and the ones that were deported just come back. Instead you are advocating a sort of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again while hoping for different results. The same can be said for pretty much any other form of criminal activity, that's no reason to stop trying to deal with it. People will always break laws, regardless of what they are. All you can do is do your best to keep unlawful activity as minimal as possible. I certainly agree that it would be nice if it could be stopped altogether, however that's simply never going to happen. That said, greater effort by the police to catch them would be a good idea. You remember that thread a while about about the LAPD not setting up roadside sobriety tests to avoid catching illegals? Putting a stop to bullshit like that would be a good start. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 13, 2011 10:59:24 GMT -5
With Art 100%. Don't care to be strawmanned any further today, so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
