DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 01:50:52 PM

Title: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 01:50:52 PM

With his thick Austrian accent, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quipped in his commencement address at Emory University this past week: "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me."  

It seems that the whole country is taking sides in the battle over the border in Arizona. Yet it truly remains the tip of the iceberg of our immigration troubles. Spurred on by the national debate, at least 10 other states are seeking to enact tougher immigration laws.

Now more than ever, we must protect our borders and sovereignty, by providing genuine solutions to the dangers of American boundary fluidity. With estimates showing that by 2060 America will add 167 million people (37 million immigrants today will multiply into 105 million then), it is imperative for us to do more to solve this crisis. Now is the time to beat the doors of change and save the boundaries and future of America.

But the federal government has failed miserably to produce a viable solution to the illegal immigration crisis.

Amnesty is not the answer. And immigration laws aren't effective if we continue to dodge or ignore them. Furthermore, globalization efforts have only confused security matters, further endangering our borders and national identity -- our sovereignty. And the question that keeps coming to my mind is: How is it that we can secure borders in the Middle East but can't secure our own?

From America's birth, our Founders struggled, too, with international enemies and border troubles, from the sea of Tripoli to the western frontier. While welcoming the poor, downtrodden and persecuted from every country, they also had to protect the sacred soil they called home from unwanted intruders.

America's Founders also were concerned with properly assimilating immigrants so that their presence would be positive upon the culture.
George Washington wrote, "By an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."
Thomas Jefferson, hailed as one of the most inclusive among the Founders, worried that some immigrants would leave more restrictive governments and not be able to handle American freedoms, leading to cultural corruption and "an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another.
It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass."
And Alexander Hamilton insisted that "the safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country, which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family."

According to the Declaration of Independence, "obstructing the Laws for the Naturalization of Foreigners" was one of the objections leveled against Britain that warranted the American colonists' seceding. Yet even the Founders themselves believed that a total open-door policy for immigrants would only lead to complete community and cultural chaos.

We are discussing and debating new ways to resolve the social crisis we call illegal immigration, but our Founders pointed the way more than 200 years ago. Like enrolling in an Ivy League school, American citizenship was considered and promoted by them as a high honor. James Madison shared the collective sentiment back then when he stated, "I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States." Hence, they processed applicants and selected only the ones who would contribute to the building up and advancement of their grand experiment called America.

Therefore, our Founders enforced four basic requirements for "enrollment and acceptance" into American citizenry. We still utilize them (at least in policy) to this day, but we desperately need to enforce them. The Heritage Foundation summarizes: "Key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law. These include:
(1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States;
(2) a 'good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States';
(3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and
(4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles."

Just think if such immigration tenets were taught in schools such as Live Oak High School, in Northern California, where kids are confused about allegiances to flags and countries. And just think if the federal government actually enforced such tenets! Arizona and the 10 other states following suit wouldn't even need to go out on a limb and create their own immigration laws as states did prior to our Constitution. If we held citizenship in the same high esteem as our Founders and simply enforced the laws we already have, we wouldn't be in this illegal immigration pickle today.


Damn racist Founders (http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2010/05/18/our_founders_solutions_for_illegal_immigration)

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: kimba1 on May 25, 2010, 02:02:19 PM

tell  me if i`m wrong
one of problems arizona has is low conviction or watered down convictions of illegals.
meaning even if the federal government finally go off it`s lazy ass and did something the problems will not be that fully address.

I`m just trying to point out this is alot bigger then people think it is

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 02:34:54 PM

I don't think anyone is claiming or even assuming this law will "fix" the illegal immigration problems of this country.  It's simply a step in the right direction, specifically for the state of AZ.  But as was noted, while all these small "santucary cities" are having coniption fits, ignorantly claiming racism, more cities, such as Costa Mesa, and at least 10 other states are looking to adopt similar legislation.

So much for the boycotts

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 02:40:04 PM

The article conflates citizenship with immigration.

Citizenship and residency are not the same thing. The words are not synonyms. They are not interchangeable. Immigration and becoming a citizen are two different things. Conflating two is stupid.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 02:43:09 PM

The article references how people would immigrate to this country, in order to become citizens.  The issue remains in how to enter America, however.  For those who don't wish to become citizens, there are other LEGAL pathways to coming here simply to work, if they so desire.

Key point being LEGAL 

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 02:54:03 PM

Watching U.S. members of the House and Senate, and the president's Cabinet in a joint session of Congress stand and applaud Mexican President Felipe Calderon's slam of Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, I thought, "What a despicable act of disloyalty to one of their own states and a ludicrous leadership move to boot, especially when 71 percent of Arizonians agree with its new immigration law. "  

President Calderon, how can you possibly criticize the state of Arizona about its newly passed immigration law, when Mexico's immigration law states:
-- Immigrants can't be an economic burden.
-- Immigrants must be healthy.
-- Immigrants must have no criminal record.
-- Immigrants must show a birth certificate.
-- Immigrants must provide their own health care.
-- Government can ban foreigners due to race.
-- Illegal entry is a felony (resulting in jail time).
-- Illegal immigrants can receive no government assistance of any kind.
-- Illegal immigrants' children may not attend public schools.
-- Document fraud is subject to fine/jail.
-- Incarceration and deportation of illegals occurs without due process or a trial.
-- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the goal of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.
-- Federal, local and municipal police must enforce immigration laws, including checking "papers" of suspected illegals

(sirs answer, blatant ignorance on the part of Calderone.  He likely hasn't read the bill either)

Mexican law actually shares similar strictness with how America's founders dealt responsibly and forcefully with immigration law. In Part 1, I concluded by outlining key criteria for citizenship from the Naturalization Act of 1795, which remain part of American law. These include: "1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; 2) a 'good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States'; 3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and 4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles."

In order for us to regain control of the chaotic mess and national disunity posed by illegals and press on to achieve the success our forefathers had in immigration, I believe we must apply those four criteria to our naturalization process in a more practical way.

First, Congress must stop the flow of illegal immigration by putting up a viable border fence and reinforcing it by whatever means necessary. Then it must refocus the streams of immigration.

In order for the sheer force of Niagara Falls to be harnessed into usable energy, it must be intentionally funneled through proper and restrictive channels. I believe the same must be done with immigration or ultimately we will hand our sovereignty over to other nations on a populous platter.

Our forefathers increased and decreased the influx of certain peoples because America was not only building a melting pot of ethnicities but securities and degrees of productivity. Today, with America having achieved that great diversity, of course we shouldn't regulate the flows of immigration based upon ethnicity. Rather, we should regulate them based upon societal needs for balance, stability and growth, just as our founders did.

James Madison spoke for most founders as he gave the purpose for immigration: "Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of."

As I mentioned, we can't properly deal with the illegals within our borders until we've stopped the flow of any more at our borders. Then, and only then, can we turn our attention to the millions already residing in our country. What I then propose for them is not amnesty in any package, but a onetime solution based upon the 1790-1795 immigration law that would separate the wheat from the chaff, straining out potentially productive and law-abiding citizens who will pay their fair share of taxes as residents.

I would give illegal immigrants already here a three-month grace period to apply for a temporary worker's visa. If they failed to apply within that time frame, they would be considered fugitives, and would be found and deported. Once they applied and qualified for a temporary worker's visa, these immigrants would be placed on a two-year probationary period (the original 1790 requirement of residency). At the completion of that time, and if they remained in good standing, they would be issued a permanent worker's visa. And, after an additional three years (completing the five-year residency requirement from the Naturalization Act of 1795), they would qualify to apply for U.S. citizenship.

During their two-year probationary period, it would be their responsibility to check in to assigned governing officials and prove their productivity and progress as a part of the American landscape. Criteria would of course be established by Congress (as the Constitution requires), but enforced by local probationary personnel from the departments of naturalization, in a similar way that probation officers monitor people on probation. If immigrants don't "check in," and do not have a good reason for not doing so, they will be deported. If they are law-breakers, they will be deported. If they don't demonstrate a good moral standing and aren't productive members of their community, they will be deported.

This is how America was built, and it is how it can be rebuilt again today -- if
- we finally secure our borders,
- better regulate the influx of immigrants to meet and build up societal needs,
- and offer a responsible path to citizenship for immigrants who are already working here and want to become productive American citizens.

Damn Nazi Founders (http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2010/05/25/our_founders_illegal_immigration_solutions,_part_2)

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: kimba1 on May 25, 2010, 03:08:17 PM

Citizenship and residency are not the same thing. The words are not synonyms. They are not interchangeable.

not the same true but thiers been abit more than one case when american borns has been deported.
remember american citizen don`t carry proof of citizenship,that state ID doesn`t always work.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 03:39:53 PM

a LEGAL State ID happens to work for AZ, IIRC

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 04:50:48 PM

Quote from: sirs on May 25, 2010, 02:43:09 PM

Key point being LEGAL

Again with the all caps. And you do it with the word 'legal' as if somehow the disagreement was about allowing people to break the law. It isn't. But you know that.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 04:54:04 PM

Some folks like to gloss over that fact, and blurr illegal with justifyable, which is why the caps

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 05:07:25 PM

Whatever helps you justify shouting at people.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 05:19:01 PM

Sorry, if your use of caps and my use are 2 different tactics.  Kinda like the chasm of thought to AZ law that supposedly targets an ethnicity/race, (despite clear wording that it doesn't) vs AZ law that targets crime that most often is perpetrated by those who have a similar racial appearance

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 06:18:28 PM

Whatever helps you justify government control.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 06:23:23 PM

Government control in doing their constitutionally mandated job of protecting this country and enforcing current immigration law.  God, what could I have been thinking??        :o

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 06:43:38 PM

Whatever helps you justify your Us v. Them mentality.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 06:48:53 PM

God, how dare I support my being an American, and pray to God everyone else who wants to be one could be.  Just call me Darth Sirs

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 07:01:36 PM

Whatever helps you justify your hypocrisy.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 07:43:05 PM

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. deceitful

Nope....doesn't fit.  Care to try for the consolation prize?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 08:05:40 PM

Doesn't fit?

Whatever helps you justify your self-delusion.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: kimba1 on May 25, 2010, 08:06:33 PM

well
it pretty much depend on what you mean american.

a person who is legally a citizen here or something deeper?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: BT on May 25, 2010, 08:15:38 PM

Quote

it pretty much depend on what you mean american.

a person who is legally a citizen here or something deeper?

Yes, terms do need definitions.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 25, 2010, 08:24:29 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 08:05:40 PM

Doesn't fit?  Whatever helps you justify your self-delusion.

Having fun with this deflective game of yours.  You're a smart fella.  You probably realize this consistent trend of making accusations, minus any of the valid support, to back them up.  Support of Government Control (outside of the bare minimum mandate of Government in protecting itself and its citizens), but no other demonstration of this support.  Lying, but no demonstration of this lying.  Hypocrisy, but no demonstration of this hypocrisy

A consistent trend of just your say so, and when challenged to provide some back up, or to answer some direct questions, we get the "why should I?" tact

You're better than that Prince.  I know you are

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 25, 2010, 10:33:28 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 02:40:04 PM

The article conflates citizenship with immigration.

Citizenship and residency are not the same thing. The words are not synonyms. They are not interchangeable. Immigration and becoming a citizen are two different things. Conflating two is stupid.

Not so.

An undesireable Immagrant would be just as undesireable permanantly as he would temporaily.


What sort of person would be a good canadate for citizen but a poor canadate for visitor?


These issues are naturally conflated because there is a lot of overlap , how many overstayed visas are there?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 25, 2010, 10:34:48 PM

Quote from: sirs on May 25, 2010, 01:50:52 PM

With his thick Austrian accent, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger quipped in his commencement address at Emory University this past week: "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend. But with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me."  

Certainly , but would that be racist in some manner?

Do we harbor very many rabid anti Austrian racists?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 25, 2010, 10:39:51 PM

Quote from: kimba1 on May 25, 2010, 03:08:17 PM

Citizenship and residency are not the same thing. The words are not synonyms. They are not interchangeable.

not the same true but thiers been abit more than one case when american borns has been deported.
remember american citizen don`t carry proof of citizenship,that state ID doesn`t always work.

I think that the burden of proof remains with the Government.

There are deaf or mute citizens , even citizens who are autistic , who would not be competant to understand the situation and produce proof for themselves .

Prior to deportation the government would need to understand who the person was somehow.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 25, 2010, 10:42:18 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 25, 2010, 06:18:28 PM

Whatever helps you justify government control.

I have seen Libertarians explain that there is adiffrence between Anarchy and Libertarianism.

Isn't there a proper amount of government controll?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 12:19:57 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 25, 2010, 10:33:28 PM

Not so.

An undesireable Immagrant would be just as undesireable permanantly as he would temporaily.


What sort of person would be a good canadate for citizen but a poor canadate for visitor?


These issues are naturally conflated because there is a lot of overlap , how many overstayed visas are there?

None of that means citizenship and residency are the same thing.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 12:20:58 AM

Quote from: sirs on May 25, 2010, 08:24:29 PM

You probably realize this consistent trend of making accusations, minus any of the valid support, to back them up.

It's no worse than your lies.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 12:28:09 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 25, 2010, 10:42:18 PM

I have seen Libertarians explain that there is adiffrence between Anarchy and Libertarianism.

Isn't there a proper amount of government controll?

Some libertarians will argue a difference between anarchy and libertarianism, some won't. Is there a proper amount of government control? Yes, as little as possible.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: sirs on May 26, 2010, 12:59:31 AM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 12:20:58 AM

Quote from: sirs on May 25, 2010, 08:24:29 PM

You probably realize this consistent trend of making accusations, minus any of the valid support, to back them up.

It's no worse than your lies.

*sigh*........Keep digging

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 26, 2010, 05:34:33 AM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 12:19:57 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 25, 2010, 10:33:28 PM

Not so.

An undesireable Immagrant would be just as undesireable permanantly as he would temporaily.


What sort of person would be a good canadate for citizen but a poor canadate for visitor?


These issues are naturally conflated because there is a lot of overlap , how many overstayed visas are there?

None of that means citizenship and residency are the same thing.

It means that a desireable visitor and a desireable resident have a lot of qualitys in common.

Could you list what makes a good visitor diffrent from a good recruit?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 05:34:33 AM

It means that a desireable visitor and a desireable resident have a lot of qualitys in common.

Could you list what makes a good visitor diffrent from a good recruit?

Now you're trying to separate visitor from resident in a manner that indicates you're equating resident with citizen. So let's rephrase. A desirable immigrant and a desirable citizen have qualities in common. Okay. A desirable low level employee and a desirable high level manager have a lot of qualities in common. Can you list ways those might differ? A desirable ensign and a desirable admiral have a lot of qualities in common. Can you list ways an ensign and an admiral might differ? Some immigrants may indeed only desire to live here temporarily. So? What is that to you? Some may seek to live here permanently but never desire to become a citizen. So? What is that to you?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:19:50 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 05:34:33 AM

It means that a desireable visitor and a desireable resident have a lot of qualitys in common.

Could you list what makes a good visitor diffrent from a good recruit?

Now you're trying to separate visitor from resident in a manner that indicates you're equating resident with citizen. So let's rephrase. A desirable immigrant and a desirable citizen have qualities in common. Okay. A desirable low level employee and a desirable high level manager have a lot of qualities in common. Can you list ways those might differ? A desirable ensign and a desirable admiral have a lot of qualities in common. Can you list ways an ensign and an admiral might differ? Some immigrants may indeed only desire to live here temporarily. So? What is that to you? Some may seek to live here permanently but never desire to become a citizen. So? What is that to you?

You are rambleing worse than I do, congradulations , it took me years to develop this.

The diffrence between a good visitor and a good new citizen is entirely  and only the desires of the person in question.

A visitor we should welcome qualifys the same way as a new citizen we should welcome , only he need not take the visit as seriously if he remains more invested in his origional homeland.

The Qualitys we do not want in a visitor overlap 100% with the qualitys we do not want to see in a permanant import. This will remain true even if you define the undesireable quality diffrently .

This conflates so naturally that it is unnatural to try to draw an artificial distinction between the two truely conflated issues.

The people we want to exclude are the same set ,whether we are talking about a week or a lifetime.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:23:12 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

[ A desirable ensign and a desirable admiral have a lot of qualities in common. Can you list ways an ensign and an admiral might differ? ?[/color]

No , what diffrence could there be? 100% of Admirals are former Ensigns.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:27:18 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 05:34:33 AM

It means that a desireable visitor and a desireable resident have a lot of qualitys in common.

Could you list what makes a good visitor diffrent from a good recruit?

 A desirable low level employee and a desirable high level manager have a lot of qualities in common. Can you list ways those might differ?

Which level requires more integrity?
Which level requires stupidity?

A higher level of management might require more experience and more proven record of accomplishment  , which he must have gotten while he was lower level.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:29:48 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

Some immigrants may indeed only desire to live here temporarily. So? What is that to you? Some may seek to live here permanently but never desire to become a citizen. So? What is that to you?

So it makes no diffrence to you either?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 12:15:09 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:19:50 PM

A visitor we should welcome qualifys the same way as a new citizen we should welcome , only he need not take the visit as seriously if he remains more invested in his origional homeland.

So, there is at least one difference.

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:19:50 PM

The Qualitys we do not want in a visitor overlap 100% with the qualitys we do not want to see in a permanant import. This will remain true even if you define the undesireable quality diffrently .

This conflates so naturally that it is unnatural to try to draw an artificial distinction between the two truely conflated issues.

Um, no. The difference between immigration and citizenship is not an artificial distinction. Nor is recognizing the difference unnatural. It is essential if we are to rationally address the immigration issue.

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:19:50 PM

The people we want to exclude are the same set ,whether we are talking about a week or a lifetime.

However true that may be, letting people come into the country is not the same as letting them become citizens of the country. Advocating immigration should be relatively easy is not advocating that becoming a citizen should be easy. Conflating the two issues is either poor argumentation or disingenuous.

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:29:48 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

Some immigrants may indeed only desire to live here temporarily. So? What is that to you? Some may seek to live here permanently but never desire to become a citizen. So? What is that to you?

So it makes no diffrence to you either?

So what makes no difference?

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:23:12 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

A desirable ensign and a desirable admiral have a lot of qualities in common. Can you list ways an ensign and an admiral might differ?

No , what diffrence could there be? 100% of Admirals are former Ensigns.

There is no difference at all? So ensigns and admirals are interchangeable? Then why bother with having rank designations?

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:27:18 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:43:47 AM

A desirable low level employee and a desirable high level manager have a lot of qualities in common. Can you list ways those might differ?

A higher level of management might require more experience and more proven record of accomplishment  , which he must have gotten while he was lower level.

So, there is at least one difference. Or maybe two.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 12:15:09 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:19:50 PM

A visitor we should welcome qualifys the same way as a new citizen we should welcome , only he need not take the visit as seriously if he remains more invested in his origional homeland.

So, there is at least one difference.

And what is this diffrence? This mentioned diffrence is a diffrence in his thinking or desires ;and what is that to you?

You do not need any power or right to command his thoughts. If you do not want him to cross the border to become a tourist  , then very certainly you also do not want him to cross the border and never recross it. This should be a matter of a trait or quality that the government has a genuine intrest in excludeing , not merely a quality of his desires being permanent residency or not.

Are you trying to find a seaparation now where you tried to put one?

Immagrants and visitors , new citizens and welcome visitors, are not four issues nor two , who we should allow to cross the border is a single issue.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 01:06:48 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:19:50 PM

A visitor we should welcome qualifys the same way as a new citizen we should welcome , only he need not take the visit as seriously if he remains more invested in his origional homeland.

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 12:15:09 AM

So, there is at least one difference.

And what is this diffrence?

You don't know? You brought it up. Do I have to do everything?

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

This mentioned diffrence is a diffrence in his thinking or desires ;and what is that to you?

So you do know what the difference is?

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

You do not need any power or right to command his thoughts.

I did not say a word about commanding the thoughts of anyone or a need to do so. Not sure that has to do with the discussion.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

If you do not want him to cross the border to become a tourist  , then very certainly you also do not want him to cross the border and never recross it.

Quite possibly.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

This should be a matter of a trait or quality that the government has a genuine intrest in excludeing , not merely a quality of his desires being permanent residency or not.

What should be?

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

Are you trying to find a seaparation now where you tried to put one?

No. The "separation" already exists. Are you not reading what I say?

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

Immagrants and visitors , new citizens and welcome visitors, are not four issues nor two

I guess you are not.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

 , who we should allow to cross the border is a single issue.

Yes. And I will now repeat: However true that may be, letting people come into the country is not the same as letting them become citizens of the country. Advocating immigration should be relatively easy is not advocating that becoming a citizen should be easy. Conflating the two issues is either poor argumentation or disingenuous.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 27, 2010, 01:24:43 AM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 01:06:48 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 26, 2010, 11:19:50 PM

A visitor we should welcome qualifys the same way as a new citizen we should welcome , only he need not take the visit as seriously if he remains more invested in his origional homeland.

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 12:15:09 AM

So, there is at least one difference.

And what is this diffrence?

You don't know? You brought it up. Do I have to do everything?

I am just going to declare a win on this point because you have lost track of where you are, there is no diffrence that the government should care about.

Quote

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

This mentioned diffrence is a diffrence in his thinking or desires ;and what is that to you?

So you do know what the difference is?

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

You do not need any power or right to command his thoughts.

I did not say a word about commanding the thoughts of anyone or a need to do so. Not sure that has to do with the discussion.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

If you do not want him to cross the border to become a tourist  , then very certainly you also do not want him to cross the border and never recross it.

Quite possibly.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

This should be a matter of a trait or quality that the government has a genuine intrest in excludeing , not merely a quality of his desires being permanent residency or not.

What should be?

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

Are you trying to find a seaparation now where you tried to put one?

No. The "separation" already exists. Are you not reading what I say?

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

Immagrants and visitors , new citizens and welcome visitors, are not four issues nor two

I guess you are not.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 12:34:45 AM

 , who we should allow to cross the border is a single issue.

Yes. And I will now repeat: However true that may be, letting people come into the country is not the same as letting them become citizens of the country. Advocating immigration should be relatively easy is not advocating that becoming a citizen should be easy. Conflating the two issues is either poor argumentation or disingenuous.

Resolved , that persons qualified to cross the US border are a set  entirely equal to the set of persons qualified to become citizens (if they so desire).

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 02:22:51 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 01:24:43 AM

I am just going to declare a win on this point because you have lost track of where you are, there is no diffrence that the government should care about.

I haven't lost track at all. You're the one asking what the meaning of your own statement is. But hey, if declaring a win you haven't earned makes you feel better, you go right ahead.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 01:24:43 AM

Resolved , that persons qualified to cross the US border are a set  entirely equal to the set of persons qualified to become citizens (if they so desire).

Nope. Not even according to the post that started this thread. Oops. Did I interfere your being on a roll with declaring victories you didn't achieve?

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 27, 2010, 02:39:01 AM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 02:22:51 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 01:24:43 AM

I am just going to declare a win on this point because you have lost track of where you are, there is no diffrence that the government should care about.

I haven't lost track at all. You're the one asking what the meaning of your own statement is. But hey, if declaring a win you haven't earned makes you feel better, you go right ahead.

Yes you have indeed lost track, you point out a diffrence that isn't there and say that I have, let us review;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A visitor we should welcome qualifys the same way as a new citizen we should welcome , only he need not take the visit as seriously if he remains more invested in his origional homeland.

Quote

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 26, 2010, 11:15:09 PM
So, there is at least one difference.

And what is this diffrence?

Quote

You don't know? You brought it up. Do I have to do everything?

What indeed? and where did I bring up a diffrence?

If you do find a diffrence would you please say what it is , and why it is a diffrence that makes a diffrence. I can't find where you have done anything like .

Thanks for  the workout  , I have enjoyed it.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 27, 2010, 04:39:30 PM

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 02:39:01 AM

Yes you have indeed lost track, you point out a diffrence that isn't there and say that I have, let us review;

Okay, but let's clean this up a bit.

Plane: The diffrence between a good visitor and a good new citizen is entirely  and only the desires of the person in question. A visitor we should welcome qualifys the same way as a new citizen we should welcome , only he need not take the visit as seriously if he remains more invested in his origional homeland. Universe Prince: So, there is at least one difference. Plane: And what is this diffrence? Universe Prince: You don't know? You brought it up. Do I have to do everything? Plane: What indeed? and where did I bring up a diffrence? If you do find a diffrence would you please say what it is , and why it is a diffrence that makes a diffrence.

Apparently I do have to do everything. Where did you bring up a difference? Well, you said, "The diffrence between a good visitor and a good new citizen is entirely  and only the desires of the person in question." Which you then explained by saying "A visitor we should welcome qualifys the same way as a new citizen we should welcome , only he need not take the visit as seriously if he remains more invested in his origional homeland." If you did not mean to say it was a difference, why call it a difference? Why bring it up at all?

Why does intent to remain or not make a difference? Well, the most obvious reason is probably that one of the requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen is a period several years of residency that clearly we are not going to require of immigrants crossing the border. To insist that all people who want to immigrate here must first have lived here for several years would be 100% stupid.

Please, in the future, do not make statements to me and then insist that I have to explain your statement to you. If you lack understanding of something you say, that isn't my fault.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 27, 2010, 07:55:46 PM

      Then we are agreed .

      The entire diffrence between a visitor and a prospective new citizen is the thoughts and attitudes of the persons in question.
        So..
        Untill mind reading is perfected ( the government is working on it) the government has no practical recourse but to treat equally the persons who intend to stay and those who intend to return.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Universe Prince on May 28, 2010, 12:10:36 AM

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 07:55:46 PM

Then we are agreed .

I doubt it.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 07:55:46 PM

The entire diffrence between a visitor and a prospective new citizen is the thoughts and attitudes of the persons in question.

Nope. Not agreeing to that at all.

Quote from: Plane on May 27, 2010, 07:55:46 PM

So..
Untill mind reading is perfected ( the government is working on it) the government has no practical recourse but to treat equally the persons who intend to stay and those who intend to return.

I'm not sure why, but apparently I need to keep repeating myself.  Letting people come into the country is not the same as letting them become citizens of the country. Advocating immigration should be relatively easy is not advocating that becoming a citizen should be easy. Conflating the two issues is either poor argumentation or disingenuous.

Title: Re: Immigration and our Founders
Post by: Plane on May 28, 2010, 12:53:57 AM

Quote from: Universe Prince on May 28, 2010, 12:10:36 AM

 Conflating the two issues is either poor argumentation or disingenuous.[/color]

Alright then , since I am unable to demonstrate that there is no practical diffrence between the persons that we ought to welcome as visitors and those we should welcome as new citizens , especially as we find them on the occasion of their application to cross our border ,. ...

I must resort to askng you to enlighten me .

What quality is a practical diffrence between the two groups ?

Especially any quality that border patroll agents should be checking for.