|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 13, 2011 11:10:43 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. Then you completely missed the point of the problem with increasing wages for farm workers, it would lead to California farmers not being able to sell their crops because they would have to raise prices and they couldn't compete in a national market. It's a complete non-starter. Stop fucking misrepresenting what I said. Lots of laws do reduce crime, but deporting illegal immigrants doesn't reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Your trite "GTFO" is empty. They get kicked out and they come right back, it accomplishes nothing. It is asinine to support a policy that only has the practical effect of using federal or state resources to no end. Now you're just lying (or shit at fact-checking, I don't care which). The checkpoints still exist, dipshit.I'm done with you, I don't like misrepresented arguments and lying. I also don't like it when people without an understanding of the US try to push for US policies. I also wouldn't be surprised if you thought a border fence is a good idea, even though it only increases the number of illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 14, 2011 1:30:01 GMT -5
Then you completely missed the point of the problem with increasing wages for farm workers, it would lead to California farmers not being able to sell their crops because they would have to raise prices and they couldn't compete in a national market. It's a complete non-starter. Which is why I said it should be done by the federal government, not California. Stop fucking misrepresenting what I said. Lots of laws do reduce crime, but deporting illegal immigrants doesn't reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Your trite "GTFO" is empty. They get kicked out and they come right back, it accomplishes nothing. It is asinine to support a policy that only has the practical effect of using federal or state resources to no end. Laws only reduce crime when they're enforced and that enforcement is a constant cost. Immigration is hardly a special case on that front. Furthermore, if all illegals were granted citizenship that wouldn't stop the inflow either, resulting in population growth that the current infrastructure and economy is not equipped to handle. Ok, they still exist, I was wrong about that. That said, they still changed the way they operate said checkpoints to avoid catching illegals and as such my point still stands. I'm done with you, I don't like misrepresented arguments and lying. I also don't like it when people without an understanding of the US try to push for US policies. I also wouldn't be surprised if you thought a border fence is a good idea, even though it only increases the number of illegal immigrants.Huh, I never thought you were the ragequit kind when it comes to discussions. The same goes for putting words in my mouth. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 1:37:26 GMT -5
I really think its fairly simple... if you want to make it easier for immigrants to access university places legally, change the law to make it easier for them to gain legal entry.
Trying to implement workarounds so that illegal immigrants can live and work in your country while keeping them illegal because the economy depends on illegal labour (or whatever) seems... well fairly ridiculous, frankly.
Further, with this DREAM act deal, what's to stop the INS from accessing the records it generates and deporting all these kids the day after they enroll?
|
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 14, 2011 1:50:27 GMT -5
Further, with this DREAM act deal, what's to stop the INS from accessing the records it generates and deporting all these kids the day after they enroll? You raise a very valid point. In fact, the country would effectively be duty bound to deport them once their illegal immigrant status was made known. Of the points being raised here, I think I am going to try and summarize. In short the dream act is a bad idea as it is spending state resources on a population group that the country is legally bound to deport. However, we are all in agreement that this is not really fair on the children of illegal immigrants and that the immigrants into the country greatly contribute to the country itself. The correct solution is not to deny or support the DREAM act because it does nothing to solve the underlying problem of the persons illegal immigrant status. Similarly, because the DREAM act is only a state based initiative, it lacks the federal backing to actually really help those who are illegal immigrants. The best option is to drop the dream act completely, and instead focus mainly on bringing this to a national level. This is an issue that can only be solved at a national level. The reason for this is that the main issue is not really that illegal immigrants are getting help to get an education, but that illegal immigrants need help to be normalized more effectively. (second generation here, you know the kids who have no choice about their status.) |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 14, 2011 2:11:45 GMT -5
You're not listening to what we're saying. I disagree with THIS change because California does not have the authority to naturalize illegal immigrants, only the federal government can. They are incentivizing people to continue their illegal presence in this country in opposition to federal law, which is the dominant law in this instance. We as a society have decided that Congress has power over this domain, not the State of California.
Keep in mind that everyone on United States soil has what's called mobility rights (see Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168). If California were to have the authority to admit immigrants legally into their state, they would also be allowing these immigrants to move into other states. California cannot impose this on the other states.
Also, I am an American citizen. I am currently an ex-patriate and LEGAL resident of France.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 2:27:50 GMT -5
You're not listening to what we're saying. Both this and the "well you don't even live here so you have no right to an opinion, so stop disagreeing with me!!!" are fairly common. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 14, 2011 2:40:56 GMT -5
You're not listening to what we're saying. Both this and the "well you don't even live here so you have no right to an opinion, so stop disagreeing with me!!!" are fairly common. You forgot the fact that ol' Zachers seems to think that his morals are not only always right but also the only thing anyone needs to consider when it comes to massive national issues like immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 3:03:04 GMT -5
Both this and the "well you don't even live here so you have no right to an opinion, so stop disagreeing with me!!!" are fairly common. You forgot the fact that ol' Zachers seems to think that his morals are not only always right but also the only thing anyone needs to consider when it comes to massive national issues like immigration. I didn' forget, just, you know, didn't want to explicitly single anyone out. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Oct 14, 2011 21:13:42 GMT -5
So I take it Celeste, LHM and Art are equally down on Georgia and Arizona intruding on the US Federal Sphere of immigration?
One more point - made ad nauseum is that the Dream Act does NOT provide public money, it just allows private donations. It seems to me that California is trying to effect some pragmatic policies into an area that they cannot entirely control because of the reservation to federal supremacy. However what they are trying to do is to benefit the State of California. Personally I would like to see which States fair better with their immigration policies - California, Georgia or Arizona. I wonder which state will receive the most benefit.
Anyway those against the Law seem to be proposing a morally unattractive proposition which is also actively detrimental to the State of California for the reason that the Law is the Law is the Law. Funnily enough I'm not sure that this proposal is inconsistent with the Federal Law.
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Oct 14, 2011 21:16:40 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if the DREAM Act helped Cali fair better...that, and I'm fairly sure both Georgia and Arizona are shit to begin with. Like most of the South, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 14, 2011 21:45:11 GMT -5
So I take it Celeste, LHM and Art are equally down on Georgia and Arizona intruding on the US Federal Sphere of immigration? One more point - made ad nauseum is that the Dream Act does NOT provide public money, it just allows private donations. It seems to me that California is trying to effect some pragmatic policies into an area that they cannot entirely control because of the reservation to federal supremacy. However what they are trying to do is to benefit the State of California. Personally I would like to see which States fair better with their immigration policies - California, Georgia or Arizona. I wonder which state will receive the most benefit. It's not about the money, it's about the fact that there's less places in colleges/universities than there are citizens/foreigners with student visas wanting to fill them. As such, there's simply no reason to give those limited spots to illegals. Not to mention, the reason illegals are economically useful is because they're not subject to minimum wage laws and thus can do unskilled work for fuck all pay. The higher paying skilled work, however, that doesn't quite offset the risk of hiring an illegal. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Oct 14, 2011 22:34:31 GMT -5
So I take it Celeste, LHM and Art are equally down on Georgia and Arizona intruding on the US Federal Sphere of immigration? One more point - made ad nauseum is that the Dream Act does NOT provide public money, it just allows private donations. It seems to me that California is trying to effect some pragmatic policies into an area that they cannot entirely control because of the reservation to federal supremacy. However what they are trying to do is to benefit the State of California. Personally I would like to see which States fair better with their immigration policies - California, Georgia or Arizona. I wonder which state will receive the most benefit. It's not about the money, it's about the fact that there's less places in colleges/universities than there are citizens/foreigners with student visas wanting to fill them. As such, there's simply no reason to give those limited spots to illegals. Not to mention, the reason illegals are economically useful is because they're not subject to minimum wage laws and thus can do unskilled work for fuck all pay. The higher paying skilled work, however, that doesn't quite offset the risk of hiring an illegal. Apart from the fact that I suspect these kids are at a serious disadvantage compared to everyone else in entry anyway so the kids who do are fucking smart -although in America that could be just fucking awesome sportsmen and women like Cain Velasquez |
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Oct 14, 2011 23:43:00 GMT -5
Alright, first, little disturbed at Celeste and Art's sudden fundy-ness towards illegals. That's messed up. You guys have a little bit of anti-mexican hate going there. You'd like to think you're not doing it out of a sense of racism, you think you're covering it up with justifications, but it's really just the same tired arguments of the Teatards, except college-educated. It's the same damn crap - you'd deny them a chance at a better life, why? Because of a paper that says "legal" or "illegal." Because they're on the wrong side of the fence, and therefore don't deserve it. And let's go back to page 1 for a minute because I don't feel like reading all six pages of this malarky - what about the kids who were born here and didn't know? "Tough luck kid, you're fucked?" or, wait, no, let's use Art's phrase "Get a Visa or GTFO." You know what that is? "I got mine, fuck you" worded only slightly differently. Same lack of empathy, same inability to relate to their condition, same belief of American exceptionalism. Really... I've liked quite a few of your arguments Art, and yours Celeste, but... this is a pretty dark place you've gone, it's shameful. I'm disappointed.
Second, -points at davedan- private scholarship /= public money
/Thread
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 15, 2011 3:19:12 GMT -5
I'm not talking about Mexicans, I'm talking about ANY illegal. And I'll say it again... rather than trying to build obscure work arounds into the system so that illegals can stay in the country and pretend to be citizens (until the INS audits the charitable foundations' books and finds them) wouldn't it make more sense to, you know, change the law so that if you want immigrants to access college places, they can be legal immigrants?
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 15, 2011 3:57:39 GMT -5
I never said anything about Mexicans, that came entirely from you Itachirumon. As Light said, it concerns illegals of any nationality. What you seem to forget is that immigration to the country of your choice is not a basic right. Whether or not you may do so is entirely up to the government of your potential new homeland, and if they say no then that's simply that. It does not give you the right to enter illegally and it most certainly does not give you the right to attend a university in this new country.
Also, as sick as I am of explaining this, I'll do so one more time. It's not about public money, its about places in universities/colleges going to illegals when there's already more than enough citizens and foreigners with valid student visas already who'd love to fill them. That's my beef here.
|
|
