Cordova likely saved the boy, Estrada said, and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.
The fact, PI as it may be, is that anyone here illegally is a criminal by definition.
But the law may be wrong. So I find it a little, ah, unkind to consider this a simple, black-and-white issue.
The law that says that people can just stroll into the US without a police record check or anything is wrong?
Can you explain why we should allow this, please?
The law that says that people can just stroll into the US without a police record check or anything is wrong?
Can you explain why we should allow this, please?
I've explained my position on immigration many times over. I'll give you the simple version. I believe the current laws are unjust and infringe on basic rights of people to enter into private labor trade agreements and the on the liberty of people to travel to find the opportunity they desire. We allow it within the U.S. and I am of the opinion that immigrating into the U.S. should not much more difficult than that. I'm not opposed to check points as we have at some places on the border or like we had with Ellis Island, but I see no reason to stop people from coming here to trade their labor for compensation.
QuoteBut the law may be wrong. So I find it a little, ah, unkind to consider this a simple, black-and-white issue.
The solution is simple, then: change the law.
Are there laws prohibiting American corporations and companies from hiring undocumented Mexicans?
Because freedom means forfeiting any input into whether or not your country and community get turned into a three ring circus.
Referring to immigration as "free trade" deserves about as much credibility as referring to sex as "co-ed deep-breathing exercises".
Yes, that may be one of the ancillary effects, but anyone trying to tell you that's the only or even the primary effect is either a liar or an idiot.
I suggest that anyone who tells you trade is not an important part of the situation is either lying to you or doesn't understand the situation.
Would you like to admit murderers, con men, rapists, or others who might become a danger to your fellow ciitzens while they are here demonstrating their right to exchange their labor for money?
How about people with contagious diseases?
I see it this way: we and our ancestors built the house, and we should have the right to decide who will live in it.
Tell me about that the day my iPod registers to vote, throws garbage on my lawn, organizes a immigration protest, and gets arrested for a DWI.
Tell me about that the day my iPod registers to vote, throws garbage on my lawn, organizes a immigration protest, and gets arrested for a DWI.
Now you're just babbling.
neocons had zip to do with NAFTA.
Are there laws prohibiting American corporations and companies from hiring undocumented Mexicans?
Yes.
Now talk about the enforcement, or lack of enforcement, won't you?
Now talk about the enforcement, or lack of enforcement, won't you?
It's enforced. Ever have to fill out an I9?
In 1996, Congress expanded the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to include violations of federal immigration law.1 While this expansion may not have received much publicity, it could potentially change the face of U.S. immigration law enforcement. Under the new RICO provisions, a violation of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) meets the definition of racketeering activity, also known as a "predicate offense,"2 and an entity that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity for financial gain can be held both criminally and civilly liable.3 Among other things, the INA makes it unlawful to encourage illegal immigration or employ illegal aliens,4 which violations were included as predicate offenses under RICO.http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1103.html
The 1996 changes in the INA made hiring illegal aliens a predicate act of racketeering activity under RICO, but illegal hiring wasn?t the only violation of the INA made a predicate act. Other INA prohibitions made RICO predicate acts were encouraging or inducing illegal immigration, smuggling, and harboring illegal aliens.10 Together, these additions make the RICO Act potentially a very strong new tool in the hands of private parties against persons and companies that profit by violating U.S. immigration law.
......In Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit, Olivia Mendoza, the Washington fruit worker, and her fellow employees alleged that their employers "knowingly hired at least 50 undocumented workers per year as part of a scheme to depress employee wages."15 If proven, this allegation would satisfy the predicate offense requirements.
........Injury Suffered by the Plaintiff. In addition to establishing that the defendant has committed a predicate offense, the plaintiff must also show proof of injury. "Under RICO, ?any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore in any appropriate United States district court? for civil damages. 18 U.S.C. ?1964(c)."19
......... Causation. The third element of a RICO claim ? causation ? has been the most challenging for plaintiffs looking for redress for injuries suffered due to violations of immigration law. In fact, the district courts that dismissed the previously mentioned cases did so based on lack of causation. This element requires that the predicate act committed by the defendant must have caused the injury to the plaintiff.
A third RICO case currently in the courts is Trollinger v. Tyson Foods. The facts of Trollinger are very similar to those in Mendoza ? a class of employees sued their employer for conspiring to depress their wages by hiring illegal aliens. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the case for failure to state a claim.41Wow!
In reaching its conclusion, the district court relied on arguments similar to those made by the district courts in Commercial Cleaning and Mendoza. In fact, the district court used the opinion from Mendoza, which of course was later reversed, to support its holding. The court applied the "direct relation" test and stated that even though the plaintiffs alleged a direct injury, "the conclusion that Tyson?s hiring of alleged illegal aliens depressed the plaintiffs? wages would require sheer speculation."42 However, this is the exact argument that the Ninth Circuit in Mendoza stated was improper ? "it is inappropriate at this stage to substitute speculation for the complaint?s allegations of causation."43
An additional factor noted by the district court that is unique to Trollinger is that a union that negotiated a collective bargaining agreement, which set the wage rate, represented the plaintiffs. The court reasoned, "As the wage rates were the product of collective bargaining, plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that those rates were ultimately depressed by the presence of alleged illegal aliens in the work force."44 However, the presence of this collective bargaining agreement will likely be seen as merely another factor which could affect wage rates, rather than the sole factor, and so the plaintiffs will likely be given the opportunity to prove that the agreement itself was affected by the employer?s hiring of illegal aliens. It is reasonable to believe that the employer, knowing that it could and would hire illegal aliens at a lower wage rate, offered less to its legal employees during the negotiations surrounding the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the hiring of illegal aliens would still be a cause of depressed wages.
A successful plaintiff is entitled to treble damages, which means threefold the actual injury suffered, plus costs and reasonable attorney?s fees.45
For this particular guy ? Lets thank him with cash.
QuoteFor this particular guy ? Lets thank him with cash.
Sure. Then escort him to the border and tell him 'Hasta la vista'.
My point is two-fold. A.) Immigration is not trade.
You can have plenty of trade without immigration.
Being denied entry to a country is not an abridgment of a "right" to trade, any more than my not being allowed to peddle coke and hookers from the lobby of the local high school is.
Any alleged right to trade is contingent on obeying other laws in the process.
B.) Immigration has other consequences besides trade, and plenty of them. They are not all necessarily good.
Is employment (the trade of labor for goods) a right or a privilege?
Being denied entry to a country is not an abridgment of a "right" to trade, any more than my not being allowed to peddle coke and hookers from the lobby of the local high school is.
On the contrary, it is an abridgment of a person's right to trade. Notice, I did not use quotes there. Fundamentally a person owns his labor and therefore has a right to agree to exchange it for something owned by someone else. Usually that means working for money. By restricting immigration, the law is essentially interfering in a person's right to enter into a private agreement of exchange with another person or entity. So yes, it is an abridgment of the right to trade. Feel free to argue that such an abridgment is right or wrong, but stop trying to sell me some adult male bovine excrement, because I ain't buying it.
Any alleged right to trade is contingent on obeying other laws in the process.
Is it? I think it is not so. The right to trade is linked to the fundamental right of property. The right exists prior to the law. Therefore the right cannot be contingent on the law or obedience to the law.
I don't believe I'd call it either one. Employment is not a right, and I'm not saying it is. The right is the right to enter into an agreement of exchange. One has a right to choose to trade, meaning both parties have a right to choose. So employment itself is not a right. So I think you're asking the wrong question.
At this point, we've just entered the realm of idiocy.
Yes or no - do I have the right to peddle dope (or for that matter, anything else) at the local high school? Does this right include the right to set up shop any damn place I feel like it? If not, why not? And if so, what rights do others have to restrict my access to their facilities?
What your telling me is the equivalent of saying the right of free speech obliges the law to provide me with a platform on which to exercise it.
What your trying to say is basically a restatement of the socialist argument that the right of life, liberty and happiness is an obligation of the part of the law to secure the means to obtain those things.
A right to act is not a guarantee of being supplied with the means to act. There's no such right.
I don't think I am asking the wrong question. The central premise of your argument is that immigrants should be free to trade their labor for goods, services and or monetary compensation.
And that pretty much is the definition of employment.
Your comparison of the right to trade labor to property rights is equally confusing.
Does the state not have property rights? Do they not have the right to set conditions for use of that property just as you would have that right within your own home?
You can hire a contractor to paint your house. And they are free to hire labor to meet that contract. But i can't hire a contractor to paint your house without your permission and you would be well within your rights to ask the uninvited labor to leave your premises.
When I say the government should not interfere with people coming to the U.S. to look for employment, I am not saying the government should guarantee anyone a job; I am only saying that the government should not interfere.
Cordova likely saved the boy, Estrada said, and his actions should remind people not to quickly characterize illegal immigrants as criminals.
They are criminals - every one of them. Entering this country illegally is a criminal act. This act of kindness doesn't change that. In fact, even if the guy was coming over here to sells drugs and mug old ladies, he might well have been inclined to assist this boy and his mom. Even a criminal (unless he is also a sociopath) can have feelings and compassion.
Of course it is entirely possible that this person was just coming over to try to make an otherwise honest living and support his family. I'd bet the vast majority of illegals are just coming here for the economic oppoprtunity. That doesn't make their acts legal. There are some 12 million illegals in this country. I would be deeply shocked to learn that only a few of them help people in times of crisis. I'd even go so far as to say that many of them would be MORE helpful if they weren't afraid of accidentally giving away their status and getting deported. But so what? A random act of humanity doesn't mean that all illegals should be viewed as angels - though this one can certainly claim the title.
The fact, PI as it may be, is that anyone here illegally is a criminal by definition. It is also true, and also PI, that a very large number of these illegals are involved in illegal acts beyond the initial crime. Had this man been a legal resident, it would have only have been a local interest story. I could come up with a thousand stories right now that had the headline "Legal Resident saves local child . . ."
So I agree with Hnumpah and Sirs - thank him, then send him back. Should he ever apply for legal citizenship, this incident might well be worth mentioning during the process. It certainly makes me inclined to forgive his (literal) trespass. But in the end, this story is not about illegal immigration, it is about individual kindness.
I see it as sort of a morality play.
The Good Samaritan sees small boy wandering in desert, disoriented, and stays with him until help arrives. Knowing that the police will send him back (the rest of the story is at the link, it says they took him into custody I think), he still stays with the boy. That is a good thing to do, no? I think so, anyway. That's why I posted it. It was self-sacrificing of him to do so. He did the right thing. If he hadn't been there...would the little boy have been OK?
It is somethign to think about. I am not for anyone and everyone coming into our country illegally. I know it's a very big problem. But this story just grabs me.
This particular person is illeagal ,but by this deed of kindness has demonstrated that he is the sort of guy that would be a good neighbor.
There is plenty of room for good neighbors , how is a system to be produced that actually does screen out harm full criminals but does not make criminals out of nice people like this one ?
For this particular guy ? Lets thank him with cash.
When I say the government should not interfere with people coming to the U.S. to look for employment, I am not saying the government should guarantee anyone a job; I am only saying that the government should not interfere.
The problem, UP, is that you are suggesting that the government should have no role - including that of defending our borders. This is one of the many reasons for which I do not subscribe to libertarian principles. I agree that government should be limited - and certainly FAR more limited than it currently is. But I do not believe government should be non-existent. It is not hyperbole to compare the gradual assimilation of barbarian groups into Roman society (which ultimately overwhelmed the empire) to the gradual (but rapidly increasing) assimilation of a culture which includes many who think they ought to "retake" Mexican lands ceded a century and a half ago. I don't take that as so big a literal threat as some of the more alarmist elements out here, but I do consider it.
Here is one simple statistic that brings this issue home to me. This past summer, I volunteered to become a literacy/ESL tutor (though an unexpected change in my life made me have to drop it.) I began the training and we were told that this year, in the city of Harrisonburg, 47 percent - almost half - of the Kindergarten population were ESL students. This is a rapidly growing city and much of the growth comes from immigration. Not all are Hispanic. We have Russians, Kurds, Bosnians and other ethnic groups. But the vast majority is Spanish-speaking. This is no longer the small city it was a decade ago when I moved here. We are rapidly growing and have even managed to capture some dubious recognition. Two of our city's fine citizens have been featured "guests" on "America's Most Wanted." Reader's Digest prominently mentioned an MS-13 murder victim from our shady little valley in a story about growing gang threats. The DEA has identified this city as one of the major sources of Crystal Meth on the East Coast. Some DMV workers were busted shortly after 9-11 creating false IDs and Driver's licenses for illegals. This city, which was safe and quiet only a few years ago, has become a dangerous place with muggings and other violent crime becoming commonplace. Not all of this, of course, is solely due to immigration. But a lot of it is.
It is not a basic right to enter someone else's lands, homes or property and take that which does not belong to you. Once having been given legal permission to enter this nation, I say make yourself at home. But until that is done, take yourself BACK home. If the government has a basic function at all, it is the protection of the borders. That's an extension of my right to secure my home from invaders. You have the right to travel from place to place, but not to enter my place without my permission. That's because of my inalienable property rights. Same goes for my borders. The government is not, as you ask BT, a landlord. Rather, it serves the function of a guard, hired by the landlord (in this case the people of the United States) to provide security for the property owned by the landlord. Violating my borders is NOT trespassing on the government's land. It is trespassing on MY land. The purpose of government is not to become some bloated bureaucracy. But it IS to provide security to those who put the government in place. That's a fundamental part of the contract of government and people. There really isn't a heck of a lot more a government should do. But it should darn well do that.
This particular person is illeagal ,but by this deed of kindness has demonstrated that he is the sort of guy that would be a good neighbor.
There is plenty of room for good neighbors , how is a system to be produced that actually does screen out harm full criminals but does not make criminals out of nice people like this one ?
For this particular guy ? Lets thank him with cash.
No, let's let him in, put him on the road to citizenship, him him get a good job, get the rest of his family and let them come as well and promote kindness for once in a blue moon.
This particular person is illeagal ,but by this deed of kindness has demonstrated that he is the sort of guy that would be a good neighbor.
There is plenty of room for good neighbors , how is a system to be produced that actually does screen out harm full criminals but does not make criminals out of nice people like this one ?
For this particular guy ? Lets thank him with cash.
No, let's let him in, put him on the road to citizenship, him him get a good job, get the rest of his family and let them come as well and promote kindness for once in a blue moon.
We don't know if that would please him or not , many migrants love their home in Mexico and cross the border just to earn some cash to bring back when they return.
It wouldn't be hard at all to send the guy a card with moral support and only mildly hard to send him a check , makeing an exception in law for him would require an act of Congess.
First you need to answer the question of what the state owns. Does it own your business? Your land? Your labor?
QuoteFirst you need to answer the question of what the state owns. Does it own your business? Your land? Your labor?
In principle yes, in reality no.
The state is quite able to put a lien on all of the above.
The problem, UP, is that you are suggesting that the government should have no role - including that of defending our borders.
Here is one simple statistic that brings this issue home to me. This past summer, I volunteered to become a literacy/ESL tutor (though an unexpected change in my life made me have to drop it.) I began the training and we were told that this year, in the city of Harrisonburg, 47 percent - almost half - of the Kindergarten population were ESL students. This is a rapidly growing city and much of the growth comes from immigration. Not all are Hispanic. We have Russians, Kurds, Bosnians and other ethnic groups. But the vast majority is Spanish-speaking. This is no longer the small city it was a decade ago when I moved here. We are rapidly growing and have even managed to capture some dubious recognition. Two of our city's fine citizens have been featured "guests" on "America's Most Wanted." Reader's Digest prominently mentioned an MS-13 murder victim from our shady little valley in a story about growing gang threats. The DEA has identified this city as one of the major sources of Crystal Meth on the East Coast. Some DMV workers were busted shortly after 9-11 creating false IDs and Driver's licenses for illegals. This city, which was safe and quiet only a few years ago, has become a dangerous place with muggings and other violent crime becoming commonplace. Not all of this, of course, is solely due to immigration. But a lot of it is.
It is not a basic right to enter someone else's lands, homes or property and take that which does not belong to you.
Violating my borders is NOT trespassing on the government's land. It is trespassing on MY land.
I fail to see why as an American citizen, I should have no say in whether there should be laws regarding who gets to enter my country,
QuoteFirst you need to answer the question of what the state owns. Does it own your business? Your land? Your labor?
In principle yes, in reality no.
The state is quite able to put a lien on all of the above.
Your right to your property isn't absolute. It's contingent on lawful use of the property.
Your right to your property isn't absolute. It's contingent on lawful use of the property.
My liberty might not be absolute. But the right is.
This is most certainly my business. Once I applied for a job and was at the top oif the list, when a Chilean immigrant applied for the same job. Because of EEOC requirements that a certain number of Hispanics be hired by the university, he was given the job. He was also paid more than I was told that the job paid.
The EEOC was supposed to be used to exist because people had discriminated against Mexican American and Puerto Rican US citizens in the past, not to give special rewards to recent non-citizen immigrants from Chile.
So you think the government owns you. I don't. Hence our disagreement.
This does indeed concern me. If an unnecessary abundance of Spanish teachers are admitted to the US, the law of supply and demand will drive down the salary of everyone else in the field.
And being as they will no doubt have Hispanic names, they will be given precedence in being hired ahead of me, withoiut regard to competence or qualifications.
It concerns all Americans when the borders are thrown open willy-nilly. We have to pay to be educated in the US, the immigrants pay less.
This is most certainly my business. Once I applied for a job and was at the top oif the list, when a Chilean immigrant applied for the same job. Because of EEOC requirements that a certain number of Hispanics be hired by the university, he was given the job. He was also paid more than I was told that the job paid.
The EEOC was supposed to be used to exist because people had discriminated against Mexican American and Puerto Rican US citizens in the past, not to give special rewards to recent non-citizen immigrants from Chile.
I imagine that a majority of Americans would agree with me, that immigration should be determined by the citizens that live here, rather than according to your demented view that supply and demand are somehow holy inalienable rights.
The most likely thing that will happen is that there will be no change in the law, and the laws on the books will continue to not be enforced. Every years there will be more and more illegals, and here in Miami the result is that there will be a higher and higher percentage of illegals working off the books, not being paid SS, not paying taxes, not being paid even the measley minimum wage. There will be more and more beggars on the streets, outside every store, pestering motorists at every onramp to the freeways, more and more snatch and grab robberies, carjackings, people with no insurance getting treated at the ER of Jackson Memorial Hospital.
If you want to see what your asshole idealistic pseudo libertarian dream actually looks like, just come to Miami-Dade County.
QuoteSo you think the government owns you. I don't. Hence our disagreement.
I didn't say that.
The government owns your land and your labor in principle, I believe you said.
QuoteThe government owns your land and your labor in principle, I believe you said.
Didn't say that either.
|
Welcome to the Republican party. Wink
The Republican Party will not cause any changes to EEOC. Universities will continue trying to raise the percentage of Hispanic-surnamed individuals in harmony with the population. Despite the fact that the aggrieved parties in years past were Mexican American and Puerto Rican US citizens, they continue to hire mostly Cubans here in Miami-Dade County, and it matters not a whit that they are residents rather than citizens. They are more easily placed in Foreign language departments, because there they are not just a majority, but an exclusivity in both of the county's two largest universities.
Most Cubans are Republican, by the way.
My daughter's mother was born in Mexico, but my daughter could not claim that she deserves any special attention from EEOC, because her surname is not Hispanic. If just one of four grandparents had been a Martinez, or one of eight great grandparents had been an Alvarez, then she would have been 'in like Flinn' (or more likely like Fernandez.
The Republicans are even more incompetent than the Democrats in nearly every aspect, and I do not identify with them at all.
Anyway, I can now suggest you keep this in mind next time you feel like trying to claim my support for trade in labor is some sort of expectation of guaranteeing people a job, or some similar inference of meaning that I did not express.
The problem, UP, is that you are suggesting that the government should have no role - including that of defending our borders. This is one of the many reasons for which I do not subscribe to libertarian principles.
But you did claim that trade of labor (employment) was a right.
Actually, this has nothing to do with libertarianism.
The "open borders" faction is basically the Cato Institute/Reason Foundation crowd, who are basically peddling what amounts to one-world corporate socialism restated in capitalist terms.
They've simply substituted redistributing the wealth among the population with redistributing the population according to the wealth. This allows them to claim the redistribution is the result of "voluntary" transactions, despite the obvious fact that, overwhelmingly, the populations of no country on earth would vote to voluntarily open their borders.
Read their positions carefully. After a while it becomes obvious the only quarrel between that crowd of "libertarians" and the out and out socialists is one over means. They're in perfect agreement as to the ends.
I did not claim employment was a right
Sure you did. You claimed the trade of labor was a right. And trade of labor is employment. ergo employment is a right.
Your insistence that only one side of the equation (the offer of labor in exchange for goods or services) is what you are advocating is where the smell comes from.
If we officially opened our borders today, what makes you think we would not have millions of Chinese pouring in as a result?
How many could we absorb without changing our culture unrecognizeably? 10,000,000? 100,000,000?
Eventually we might even be economically better off, but we would also be more crowded, and our children would have to learn Mandarin just to get a decent job.
Aso. The Yellow Peril rears its ugly head, and we see your motivation.
Is this going to be your SOP Prince? Anyone that disagrees with open borders must be a racist??
Is this going to be your SOP Prince? Anyone that disagrees with open borders must be a racist??
No. Xavier complained that open borders would result in an invasion of Chinese that will change our culture, and that's basically the concept of the Yellow Peril. Not my fault if you don't like it. .
As I said, we're all used to Tee's bigotry, I was just hopeful you weren't going to follow the same SOP as it relates to trying to defend an open borders agenda
I`m against open borders,simply for the fact I came here legally and don`t see how anybody else should get a better deal than me.
I had to get a sponser waited several years and take a test.
As I said, we're all used to Tee's bigotry, I was just hopeful you weren't going to follow the same SOP as it relates to trying to defend an open borders agenda
I'm not.
If the successful trade of labor is not employment what is it. why travel thousands of miles to trade labor if there isn't the expectation of success?
"The pursuit of happieness"?
I doubt that the Chinese would like to have 200,000,000 Americans in their country, either.
I am okay with checkpoints, and I'd probably be okay with fingerprint scans. But I see nothing beneficial in the current immigration bureaucracy. I see no reason to interfere with people coming here to get a job.
When the laws essentially entrench a black market underground in immigration and labor trade, why would you expect a different outcome?
Perhaps, but someone crossing the U.S. border is not tresspassing on your land unless your land is on the border and the someone steps on your land.
People move from state to state within the U.S. all the time, and yet I see no one saying that such a violation of private property. I see no reason at all why someone crossing the U.S border would be trespassing when crossing the nearest state-to-state border is not.
Someone coming here to find work is not stealing any more than someone moving from Wyoming to California to look for work would be stealing. Why can we allow one but not the other?
Yes, I know it's a national border, and I am willing to make allowances for that.
But I see no good reason to trample on the poor immigrants and would-be immigrants who want to do what people within the country do all the time: find employment in a different place.
That seems contradictory. On the one hand you have no problems with security measures at the border, but on the other hand you say that "workers" should not be interfered with.
If we are to have freedom of movement across the border why should we have checkpoints?
Conversely, if we can have checkpoints, why not have an immigration policy that controls border entry? Pretty much every country I know of does that.
If a "black market" in labor allows in an extremely high number of immigrants and many of those are engaged in inappropriate behaviors, those same people (and a whole lot more) would enter the country and engage in those behaviors under an open border policy.
To suggest otherwise is to suggest that a better class of people would visit my home in the wee hours of the morning if I simply left my door unlocked. Or perhaps it suggests that a terrorist with bomb making equipment might come to the border and say "Sweet Mohammed! How will I ever slip this material past those invisible guards?"
Yes, they are trespassing on my land, because while the proprietor may be anyone from a private citizen to a business to the US Government itself, the border protects my nation from invasion. I don't own New York or the Pentagon either, but I still insist Al Quaeda attacked my land. The right of the individual to protect his own private property extends to the right of this society to protect its territory.
That's simply a false analogy. The relationship between the sovereign states established in the Articles of Confederation and perpetuated in the Constitution (and clarified in the fourteenth amendment) make state border control of individual movement moot. No such relationship exists with Mexico, Canada or any other nation.
To look at it from another angle, if an illegal alien crosses the border from Mexico to Texas he has committed a crime. If he then crosses the border from Texas to Oklahoma, he has committed no further crime (at least I don't think he has). If Oklahoma catches him, they aren't sending him back to Texas. They're sending him back to Mexico.
Acts of conscience like those of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King or Sir Thomas More are courageous and praiseworthy. Jumping a border - especially when doing so for immoral reasons - is simple trespassing.
As you are comparing interstate travel of legal citizens with international travel of illegal aliens I find that concession puzzling.
Let them do it legally.
and don't come here legally and try to turn it into YOUR country.
The immigrants coming here don't respect the language or the culture I get told. But as I look into this, those same complaints have been made of immigrants for at least the last century if not the last two centuries. And yet, the U.S. is possibly, arguably better now than is has been, in the economy, in strength, in culture.
Of course, in addition to saying that anyone who is just looking for a job should be able to srtroll right in, you also say that there should be no minimum wage.
[...]
As for the speculation that if the US throw open the borders to everyone, this is purely hypothetical. As has been pointed out, no country would agree to this. If it did happen, however, people would come from the poorest parts of the world.
If I am in an elevator, I can share it with 20 other people. But if 30 additional Brataslavians wish to join me, then refusing their entry does not make me anti-Bratislavian.
I'm not sure where your living Prince,
I'm not sure where your living Prince,
In the U.S. where complaints about immigrants have been around for a very long time. Through the history of this country, the complaints about immigrants have been largely the same. Not learning the language, lazy, sending money out of the country, dirty, criminals, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And yet you say this is not what you have seen. Huh. I wonder if that means anything.
Checkpoints the borders do not leave people waiting for months years or decades for entry.
Because I'm not suggesting zero attempts at security. I'm suggesting letting people get on with the business of life. A few moments getting a finger scanned is considerably less interference than waiting years for red tape to clear.
If we can have checkpoints, why do we need to interfere with people who are trying to find work and improve the lives of their families?
Oh don't be silly. Yeah, if we opened the borders, people are still going to risk death to sneak through the desert even though they don't have to, still going to spend money on coyotes and fake IDs even though they don't have to, still make secret deals to work for cash and risk imprisonment even though they don't have to. Yeah, because they get off on the thrill of risking death and imprisonment. Got nothing to do with trying to find work and make a better life for themselves. Don't be ridiculous.
Oh good gravy, terrorists? You mean like the ones who come here on legal visas? Maybe you mean the terrorists like Timothy McVeigh? Come on, Pooch. Border security has little to do with stopping terrorists. And no, it's not suggesting anything about leaving your door unlocked. It's more like suggesting that having someone Mexican move in next door really is okay.
Your right to free speech does not extend to silencing other people. Your right of private property does not extend to the abridgment of other people's right of private property.
Yet we can make exceptions any time we like. See Cuban refugees.
You're missing an important point. He has not actually violated anyone's rights. Moving to here from there is not like murder or theft. It is illegal not because it is a violation of rights but merely because there is a law. Once upon a time, a slave escaping from a plantation a criminal. Not because he had violated anyone's rights, but because he had broken a law, an unjust law. I'm not equating immigration law with slavery. I'm merely pointing out that just because there is a law does not mean that the law is right, and sometimes the right course is not to see the law enforced but to change the law. Just because there is a law does not necessarily mean we need the law.
Immoral reasons such as trying to make enough money to feed and clothe a family? Do we really need to protect ourselves from such people?
No, I'm suggesting that international travel should be only marginally more interfered with than interstate travel. I'm saying that people find risking death and imprisonment a better alternative to coming here legally indicates there is something seriously wrong with our immigration laws. I'm saying that there is only a little more (if any) reason to interfere with people coming here to work and live and spend their money any more than there is to interfere with people doing so on merely an interstate basis.
That is exactly what I'm saying. Let them do it legally. Change the law so they can do come here legally and with relative ease, rather than needing a sponsor and spending hundreds of dollars and navigating a labyrinth of red tape that would daunt Theseus and then waiting indefinitely, possibly for years. Would that really be so gorram horrible?
That complaint has been used since probably the ratification of the Constitution. Guess what? The country is different now than it used to be, and I don't just mean it's bigger. The country does have influences of other cultures and other traditions and other languages. And in my opinion, we are better for it. And a lot of that influence came from immigrants who came here under much less restrictive immigration policy. And the immigrants who came here made the U.S. their country not by losing who they were and adopting some pure American culture. They made the U.S. their country by contributing ideas, words, traditions, foods, et cetera they brought with them from the old country. As I've said before, America is a Melting Pot, not a Smelting Pot. And that is the way it should be.
Pooch, I do respect you. But what I see in your post is something I see in a lot of anti-open border arguments. I see a sort of righteous defense of strict border control as if there was some sort of moral ground at stake. It is there in your all-capital words of your final paragraph and in your comparisons of illegal immigration to theft and trespassing. I can respect your position, but I don't agree.
You seem to see people coming here illegally to trespass and steal and engage in criminal behavior. What I see is people risking death and imprisonment largely because they want to make some money to provide for their own and their family's wellbeing. I see people who, when they do finally get permission to come here, having to leave families behind for years because the laws and the bureaucracy just won't allow the rest of the family members to enter. I see that and feel compelled to ask why. And so far, I have not seen a single compelling argument for the why.
Criminals, terrorists, disease I get told, but the facts don't play out that way as best I can tell. The vast majority of immigrants are good folks who are not terrorists, not spreading disease, and if they are criminals, only because they have broken law for which I have not yet seen a substantial justification.
Private property protections I get told. But the laws are trampling on private property protections. The private property of the immigrant's labor, the private property of the employer, these are infringed in the name of protecting the border. And who suffers? All of us. Immigrant labor ends up working off the books, causing more danger for them. We have restricted labor pools, and employers suffer both lack of workers and customers. Off the books labor pays no taxes on income. Low or unskilled workers here natively get shafted because they can't compete with lower than minimum wage off the books workers. Who benefits? Criminals. We've established an underground back market in labor, falsified identification, et cetera. Why? Why? We don't need this. We don't benefit. We lose in the long-term.
Now some folks think rights are granted by the government or by society. I don't agree. Rights are rights and not privileges because they are something everyone has and cannot be given or taken away. (And please, let's not confuse rights with the liberty to exercise rights.) And I see the immigrants, and I think they have the same rights I do. (No, not the same privileges; citizenship, voting and the like are privileges, not rights.) So I think they should have the same basic liberty that I do. And I see the immigrants risking death to get here and imprisonment to stay here, and I really don't see people here to steal and destroy. (Yes, I know some immigrants are bad people, but so are some native born folks.) Instead, I see people who, if left alone for the most part, would, for the most part, be able to legally find work and make life better for themselves and their families. I see people who would benefit themselves and others, including us, if the law, mostly, got out of the way.
My position for immigrants is the same as it is for most everyone else. Liberty.
What it means, is what I've referenced above.
I have no problem with changing the laws. I am, in fact, in favor of simplifying them. My problem, and the only one I have stated, is people using the inconvenience of the law as an excuse to break it.
Illegal immigration is a criminal act. Illegal immigrants are criminals.
You are suggesting that the government establish security checkpoints, yet simultaneously suggesting that international travel should not be interfered with.
As to the idea of quick security checks at the border, how might we implement those?
We might, if we establish a reasonably working national criminal database be able to prevent previous US offenders from re-entering, but if we attempted to do that civil libertarians would have a heart attack. Look at all the whining about the Patriot Act.
And how can we be expected to run a security check on an incoming foreign national in a few minutes at the border when we allow ourselves three days to check a US citizen for a gun purchase?
Yet to get a job in a public school (or even in most corporations today) we would have to pass a background investigation. We can't put incoming immigrants to that kind of test, because we have no access to foreign records, except what other governments might be willing to share.
What you are suggesting is making a useless gesture of security
rather than having the semi-serious policy of restriction that we now have, or actually coming up with a decent border plan as we should.
Security checkpoints do a little bit to stem the flow of illegal items into this country - precious little. Increasing immigration by making it increasingly easy to get into the US will increase the flow of drugs and other inappropriate items - and increase the danger from terrorists as well. It is a matter of simple math.
I meant that people who were here to do things like run drugs, bomb discos (do we have those anymore?) or engage in other illegal activites would still be coming in, in that much easier manner, to do them. And far more would come, seeing as how any risk associated with border crossing was now eliminated. Again, simple math.
And there is no reason to call me silly or ridiculous for making a point with which you disagree.
Yes, terrorists got here on legal visas. So let's just keep the door unlocked, since our nanny stole our silverware.
FYI my son very nearly married a Mexican woman he met while on his mission in Mexico City. I would have had no problem at all with that. Your implication that my objection to illegal immigration is based on racism is insulting, inaccurate - not to mention a simplistic way of deflecting the argument.
My analogy was based on the concept that locks are NOT intended to prevent theft. They are only intended to discourage it and make it more difficult to accomplish for those not deterred. The more locks and security devices you employ, the less likely you are to be robbed. That is exactly true of the border. The more physical security you employ, the less likely bad elements will enter. So my analogy is both valid and reasonable.
If I were the xenophobic, racist person you imply, I would certainly have had an attack of apoplexy by now.
It's a shame to see a person with the intelligence and analytical prowess you possess stoop to coloring every anti-illegal-immigration argument as subtle racism.
QuoteYour right to free speech does not extend to silencing other people. Your right of private property does not extend to the abridgment of other people's right of private property.
Again, a false analogy. If these people want to LEGALLY obtain entry into this country, I have no problem. If you want to LEGALLY obtain private property, I have no problem with that. If you simply want to stake a claim in my back yard and then defend it as YOUR private property, we have a problem. My objecting to illegal entry does not violate anybody's rights, anymore than my keeping trespassers off of my land.
I see no problem with changing laws - or policies - based on whatever criteria seems appropriate. Those changes make previous illegal acts legal (like, say, black people eating at white people restaurants). But I do not see how that argument relates to the point it seems intended to rebut.
I do not agree that he is not violating anyone's rights, because I believe security is a basic right.
Border control laws are not unjust. Nobody is having their rights violated by having to follow appropriate procedures to enter this country.
Whether we choose to change the law at a later date because enough people agree with you or for some other reason, the law - a perfectly legitimate one - is in effect now, and people breaking it should be subjected to the appropriate consequences. Better yet, since the consequences of illegal entry are so light now that millions of people ignore the law, better preventive measures should be taken - and stronger consequences for violation ought to be in effect.
When did I suggest that trying to feed your family is immoral?
I think that citizens of a country ought to be allowed to move about freely in that country.
As to your assertion that people willing to risk their lives to come here indicates there is something wrong with our laws, I disagree completely. it simply indicates there is something wrong with their homelands.
QuoteThat is exactly what I'm saying. Let them do it legally. Change the law so they can do come here legally and with relative ease, rather than needing a sponsor and spending hundreds of dollars and navigating a labyrinth of red tape that would daunt Theseus and then waiting indefinitely, possibly for years. Would that really be so gorram horrible?
That was not my point. I didn't say "Make what they are doing legal."
I mean let them obey the laws, and if the laws make their lives inconvenient, tough.
Perhaps they should start making their own nations better internally, rather than trying to burden my country.
The Irish didn't come here and suggest that Boston and New York should be ceded to Ireland.
Yes, this country is a nation of immigrants, but immigrants who came understanding that they were becoming Americans - not hyphenated-Americans.
I do not see people coming here illegally TO trespass. I see it as an act of trespass in itself.
But I do see a large portion of them involved in such activities - and I suggest that increasing immigration will increase those bad elements. it's that math thing again.
I agree with your point about family members gettting in. Once a person has attained legal citizenship, they should be able to bring in their immediate family - though that, too, should be contingent on those members seeking citizenship as well. That is one of the areas in which the laws should be changed.
That, again, is a libertarian argument taken to an extreme. You do not see a justification because you are politically biased toward very weak governments. It is a position that has merit, but I think is wrong. What we have here is not a matter of right or wrong, but perspective.
As to your argument that border control violates the right to the "private property" of labor skills, I doubt that many would define a skill as a form of "property" - legally or semantically.
Certainly a skill cannot be taken from you. But once again, even if we consider skills as property, I am n ot violating your right to have - or use - your skills by saying you may not have them on MY property without my permission.
Liberty is not the same as license.
I think that a rational government must be strong enough to protect those it governs. Border protection is one area where I believe the government should be given as much leeway as possible.
What it means, is what I've referenced above.
In other words, you're just going to ignore some 200 years of people complaining about immigrants and just take the rosy view that before now they were all good and accepted with open arms, and only recently have immigrants become the object of objections like not learning the language and changing the culture. Okay.
A primary difference, and possibly a major reason why many in the current culture are "upset" about this recent immigration issue, is that it has the real probability of changing the status quo, e.g. the existing culture. Nature abhors change.
If you look back in your life, how many times did you not want change and yet once it happened, it turned out to be A GOOD THING.
I didn't think you were one to jump on the xo's blow-it-completely-out-of-proportion approach of hyperbolic response, but, whatever floats your boat, Prince.
A primary difference, and possibly a major reason why many in the current culture are "upset" about this recent immigration issue, is that it has the real probability of changing the status quo, e.g. the existing culture. Nature abhors change.
If you look back in your life, how many times did you not want change and yet once it happened, it turned out to be A GOOD THING.
Yeah well, in the political realm, even if it isn't a Good Thing, you can be pretty sure it will retroactively be declared one anyway, by fiat.
Just like the last massive influx of immigrants.
I didn't think you were one to jump on the xo's blow-it-completely-out-of-proportion approach of hyperbolic response, but, whatever floats your boat, Prince.
I'd ask you how I'm wrong when you are quite obviously not acknowledging some 200 years of people complaining about immigrants, but .
A primary difference, and possibly a major reason why many in the current culture are "upset" about this recent immigration issue, is that it has the real probability of changing the status quo, e.g. the existing culture. Nature abhors change.
If you look back in your life, how many times did you not want change and yet once it happened, it turned out to be A GOOD THING.
Yeah well, in the political realm, even if it isn't a Good Thing, you can be pretty sure it will retroactively be declared one anyway, by fiat.
Just like the last massive influx of immigrants.
I happen to like my current culture (most of it anyway), so this influx concerns me as well. But, realisticially, I simply do not see any real progress being made to address it. Do you?
UP, if you have inferred that I think you are an idiot because I disagree with your point, that inference is entirely your problem - and your error. There are few people on this forum I respect as much as you. I did not, at any time, imply any such thing. You explicitly said that I was being ridiculous and silly. You implicitly accused me of racism by suggesting that the issue was whether it was OK fofr a Mexican to live next door. I think any rational person would view the direct insults as insults. I think it is reasonable to infer a charge of racism from your "Mexican next door" comment.
You say I only see the trespassing, robbery, etc. That is not true. I see a lot of good in a tradition of immigration. I see a lot of great folks originally from other nations who are doing wonderful things in this country. The problem is that I ALSO see the other side - and in spades. You ignore that.
You object to my analogy of leaving the door unlocked, but in fact that is exactly what you are suggesting. Making it easier to enter the border will make more people with bad intent come in. It really is simple math.
I am saying that all of the checks we have in place now are far too unwieldy, generally ineffective and take too much time and money to implement.
Your suggestion that we expand such efforts at the border is paradoxically creating a larger bureaucratic need and predictably inviting an inefficient mess.
I talk about securing the borders and you bleed that into a national ID card. This is why the sort of checkpoint activities you suggest will not fly - too many people crying big brother.
The only people I want controlled are the ones entering our country illegally.
I don't want state checkpoints, though you keep trying to bring interstate travel into the issue.
I deny that anyone from another country has any right to obtain "property" of any kind in this country illegally.
An individual stepping across my border may not make me less secure. Another individual doing so may kill me. That argument is too simplistic, UP.
Of course we can't GUARANTEE security, but neither can we guarantee free speech, freedom of religion or a fair trial. We just do our best to provide it (in the case of security, using such things as the second amendment).
And expecting people to follow legal methods to transact business is true in pretty much all businesses.
Which does not change the fact that we need to enforce the law in effect now - whether you think it is necessary and just or not
Disliking the idea of ceding US land has nothing to do with disliking Mexicans.
Well, laugh it up, but the Irish did not come here to be Irish. They came here to become American - and they did.
I see something extreme about creating rights that don't exist.
A primary difference, and possibly a major reason why many in the current culture are "upset" about this recent immigration issue, is that it has the real probability of changing the status quo, e.g. the existing culture. Nature abhors change.
Regardless, due to political inaction and/or politico-speak, nothing effective will be done, so let's get on the bandwagon and all go take classes in Spanish, shall we? And/or Mandarin.
Regardless, due to political inaction and/or politico-speak, nothing effective will be done, so let's get on the bandwagon and all go take classes in Spanish, shall we? And/or Mandarin.
We're not in danger of losing English. And chances are good that we never will be. English will change, of course, as it always has. Some day the Dark Tower saga by Stephen King will need translation not entirely unlike how Chaucer's Canterbury Tales needs translation today, but there will still be an English language.
The Dark Tower saga by Stephen King needs a better ending.
I agree that English can withstand change , our present language is loaded with foreign phrases and words kidnapped from their homeland and pressed into service as English words.
What would more captured words do but continue the delevelopment of English much as it has developed up to now?