Author Topic: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship  (Read 35737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #75 on: August 05, 2010, 11:05:12 PM »
Exactly right SIRS. The US is the last country that will ever have closed borders.
We just don't want tens and tens of millions of people flooding in here legal
or not in too short of period of time. As far as UP I think he is very bright,
but I find him very difficult to communicate with...so thats why I stopped.
I had to give up because it always seemed to me that nothing could be a
"given" with him...the discussion always leads to some off topic tangent
defining words or "he said/she said" non-sense that doesn't amount to a hill
hill of beans in regard to the primary topic....it seems to me it always ends
up being a "define is" situation. But I admire your patience with him and enjoy
ya'lls back and forth discussions. Even-though I watch him try your pateince too.
("Sorry Prince, not going to play that game of yours today")
I think he and I would be fine in person. I am glad UP sticks around because
although I gave up communicating directly with him, I still learn things from him
and many times enjoy his thoughts and posts.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #76 on: August 05, 2010, 11:34:17 PM »

As I have said before many times, I am fully in favor of government keeping known criminals and diseased people out of the country.

Not unless you are in favor all immagrants submitting a leagal application you are not.

If you don't favor giveing the government a chance to examine the record and health of all immagrants you are not in favor of excludeing the ones who won't submit themselves to examination.


Have I said I am not in favor of immigrants filling out paperwork or submitting applications? Have I said I am against giving government a change to check the records and health of those who wish to enter the country? No. So why would you assume such was my position?
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #77 on: August 05, 2010, 11:51:50 PM »

That's based on your opinion of being unjust.  Your say so, however doesn't make them so.  That's why your question isn't addressed to your satisfaction, because those you argue with on this topic, have not accepted your position that they are unjust, in the 1st place.  So, since the premice is already flawed, as it relates to immigration, you're never going to accept any answer.

My premise isn't flawed because you don't accept it. And I have yet to see an argument as to why the current immigration laws are just. So far all anyone seems to be able to muster up is that the law should be obeyed because it's the law. But that simply is not good enough. ("I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'")


But, if we want to address the question in a generic term, subtracting the immigration component, then you have to have a concensus that the law in question is unjust.

I was not aware just and unjust were matters of popular opinion. You seem to have a strange and troubling notion of what makes something just or unjust.


And when they are, then yes, the probvlem is the law, & the formula is legislative change, not simply breaking them, because they've been deemed unjust by........X

As I said before, I cannot blame them for breaking the law any more than I could have blamed a thirsty black man drinking from a "whites only" water fountain in the 1950s.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #78 on: August 05, 2010, 11:58:50 PM »

Oh come on SIRS...lots of murders still happen even with the laws in place...
so golly gee our murder laws must be unjust!


That is a totally bogus argument. For one, no one said immigration law is unjust because people disobey it. For another, crossing the border is not a violation of a individual rights, but murder is. Equating the two is misleading and intellectually irresponsible.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 05:41:31 AM by Universe Prince »
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #79 on: August 06, 2010, 12:03:44 AM »

But no, that's not a policy of a closed border,


No, it isn't. It's a policy of strictly controlled immigration. If I had meant to say it was a policy of a closed border, I would have said so. And I would have been wrong. So since that would have been wrong and since I didn't mean to say it was a policy of a closed border, I therefore did not say that. Come on, guys. This ain't rocket science.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #80 on: August 06, 2010, 12:05:55 AM »

The US is the last country that will ever have closed borders.


Good thing then no one here said the U.S. has closed borders, i'n'it?
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #81 on: August 06, 2010, 12:52:16 AM »
The number of illegal immigrants attempting to come into the United States has continuously increased. In addition, the number of legal immigrants admitted into the country has reached new highs. It is estimated that legal immigration in the 1990s surpassed the levels of the last previous peak of legal immigration from 1901 to 1910. During that time period nearly 9 million legal immigrants were allowed into the United States. From the period of 1968 to 1993, it is estimated that 16.7 million immigrants entered the country legally. Of these 16.7 million legal immigrants, nearly 85% were from developing countries. This percentage is composed of nearly 50% legal immigrants that came from the Caribbean and Latin America and about a third that came from Asia. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s some illegal immigrants in the U.S. have benefited from immigration policies that have granted amnesty, created a system for refugees, and have raised the quotas for the number of legal immigrants allowed. The number of legal immigrants allowed is anywhere from 700,000 to 900,000 on an annual basis.
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/immigration-us.html

Colored drinking fountain, my ass.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #82 on: August 06, 2010, 01:22:40 AM »

Colored drinking fountain, my ass.


No thanks.

In any case, that the number of immigrants has increased overall (and is now in decline actually) does nothing to address the nature of the law or the fact that many people still end up waiting years for permission to enter legally. Just as the number of black people in the U.S. has and had nothing to do with the fact that racial segregation laws were unjust.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #83 on: August 06, 2010, 12:23:50 PM »
The US legally admits just 5000 unskilled laborers annually. All those who apply must pay fees to apply, and if they are rejected, the fees are not returned. If they reapply, they must pay again. So, if one is an unskilled laborer seeking quick admission to the US, jumping the fence would seem to be the logical way to go.

At least when dodging the Migra, one is in control. One has no control over paper pushers at the consulate.

If one has skills, then that improves one's chances. Experience at teaching Arabic or Chinese or some other language to English speakers would be a useful talent, I would think.A degree in medicine or engineering would be a major help. And of course, if one has loads of money, that is best of all. Rupert Murdock and his Chinese wife had no difficulty whatever, despite their well-earned reputations as a sleazebag and a golddigger, respectively. Rupert's $4 billion made them infinitely desirable, apparently
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #84 on: August 06, 2010, 12:55:28 PM »
85% of immigrants are from developing countries. 50 % are from the Caribbean and Latin America. 25% from Asia.

The claims that immigration laws are racist or that they are akin to segregation laws or that the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #85 on: August 06, 2010, 03:17:04 PM »
Most of those who are rejected for visas are from poor countries, and most of those who are rejected are unskilled workers. Immigration probably would treat an unskilled Mexican bean farmer and an unskilled Indian rickshaw driver the same way. The thing is, the rickshaw driver does not apply, nor does he have any way to even get to the border, since there is a large ocean between Calcutta and the California border.

As I said, the US admits only 5000 unskilled workers per year. The US discriminates against unskilled workers and in favor of billionaires and their wives. This certainly bnefits the country more than if it were the other way around.

The US does not get many German, Swedish, Japanese or Australian unskilled workers to apply. Maybe it gets none. Most workers from those countries have graduated from at least vocational schools, after all.

So when the US rejects 10,000 unskilled Mexicans and only 12 unskilled Swedes, it is functionally racist, but not intentionally so.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #86 on: August 06, 2010, 03:38:12 PM »

The claims that immigration laws are racist [...] or that the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit.


You're right. Having laws about immigration is not inherently racist. No one said it was. That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear. It also does not mean current U.S. immigration law is just.


or that they are akin to segregation laws


From my perspective, that is sort of like saying there is nothing discriminatory about "separate but equal".

And I find interesting that so far no one is producing any arguments that the current law is just. At best I've seen an effort to say that supporting the current system isn't racist and an effort to equate illegal immigration with murder. Step up your game, fellas.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #87 on: August 06, 2010, 07:37:17 PM »
Quote
You're right. Having laws about immigration is not inherently racist. No one said it was. That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear.

And we know this to be true because.... you say it is true?

But at the same time you have laws on the books that are not inherently racist, wishing for enforcement of those laws is motivated by racism (irrational prejudice and/or fear).

Resolved: Anyone in this country illegally should be deported.

I don't see how that can be deemed racist.

Resolved: illegal Mexican immigrants should be deported. I can see how that would target one group and not the other and under the loose definition of racism be deemed racist.

Resolved: Illegal Mexican immigrants should not be deported.

I can see how that would treat one group differently than another and unbder the loose definition of racism be deemed racist.

Resolved: No one in this country illegally should be deported.
I don't see how that can be deemed racist.

But i do see how that would be contrary to the nation of laws meme.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #88 on: August 07, 2010, 05:41:21 AM »

As I have said before many times, I am fully in favor of government keeping known criminals and diseased people out of the country.

Not unless you are in favor all immagrants submitting a leagal application you are not.

If you don't favor giveing the government a chance to examine the record and health of all immagrants you are not in favor of excludeing the ones who won't submit themselves to examination.


Have I said I am not in favor of immigrants filling out paperwork or submitting applications? Have I said I am against giving government a change to check the records and health of those who wish to enter the country? No. So why would you assume such was my position?


So you want the restrictions against border crossing without official permissions to be strictly enforced?

Without a good fence submitting application becomes ,practicly, optional.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
« Reply #89 on: August 07, 2010, 05:59:50 AM »
Resolved: My discussing anything here has devolved into a matter of constantly having to correct people about what I said. If I were to say "the sun rises in the east," someone would surely try to insist I meant that the west is forever in the dark. If I were to say "selling raw milk should not be against the law," someone would eventually draw a comparison between allowing the sale of raw milk and allowing murder. If I were to say someone supports strictly restricting and controlling immigration, someone would try to claim what I really meant is that he wants a closed border.

I'm not saying anyone should make things easy for me. I just wish you all would give me credit for saying what I actually said, rather than this "must read between the lines" nonsense where you infer anything you goddamn please, and then assume and assert that I secretly meant to say whatever inference you have imagined.

I am not talking in code. I am not being obscure or esoteric or obfuscatory or enigmatic. I am (most of the time) trying to be tactful and polite (as best my limited skills in such things allow), but I am not hiding any secret meanings, insults, messages, accusations or codes in my sentences.

I am, however, getting really tired of having to correct people in every post.

For example, BT seems to think what I really meant was "But at the same time you have laws on the books that are not inherently racist, wishing for enforcement of those laws is motivated by racism (irrational prejudice and/or fear)." That is clearly not what I said. You have to really be trying to force your inferred meaning into my sentences to think that I said something like that.

Why should I bother explaining myself when anything I say is going to be only further fodder for this sort of thing? What is the point? You are not really paying attention to what I say because you're so goddamned busy trying to force my words into some preconceived notion of whatever the frak you think it is you think you're arguing against.

BT said, "the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit." In my reply, the first thing I said was "You're right." That is a statement of agreement with BT's assertion that supporting the enforcement of the laws on the book is not racism. I also said, "That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear." Going by BT's reply to that, he certainly seems to think my agreement with his statement is a lie. He equated "irrational prejudice and/or fear" with racism. If I had intended to express that it was racism, I would have said "racism". But that is not what I said. And racism is not the only form of irrational prejudice or irrational fear. And a lack of racism does not mean a lack of irrational prejudice. But BT apparently assumes that I cannot have meant anything other than racism.

How am I supposed to engage in a discussion with someone who seems to assume what I mean before I've even said it? Apparently, I don't ever need to say anything here. You all seem very willing and able to assume you know what I "really" mean, and so you argue against that rather than what I say. There are times when I wonder if some of the replies I get are meant for someone else because they seem so completely unrelated to what I said. CU4LG complains that discussing things with me is too difficult because I insist on trying to clearly pin down definitions of terms used. How can I not so insist when this sort thing goes on all the time?

Not that long ago, BT expressed a desire to improve the quality of posts here "by encouraging those who post on the issues and discouraging those who post on personalities." That is certainly a good idea. I submit that another thing to be done to improve the quality of posts, and discussions, here would be to encourage not assuming constantly that the other person is trying to sneak in hidden meanings in his statements. You know, a little trust that the other person meant to say what he said rather whatever you think he might mean. BT also expressed a desire to rebuild a sense of community here. I submit that a little more trust and a lot less of the "must read between the lines" would go along way towards that goal. There is a time to read between the lines, and there is a time to grasp that one's debate opponent is not a sneaky bastard trying to pull one over on you or secretly insult you in front of everyone.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 06:13:22 AM by Universe Prince »
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--