Author Topic: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy  (Read 14455 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Seamus

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #45 on: November 13, 2007, 03:13:50 AM »
Should undocumented immigrants get driver's licenses?

No.  You don't REWARD unlawful activity


If they don't, then they will jsut drive anyway to get to work and then look at the mess.

If they break the law, they're to reap the repercussions


100%.  I believe U.S. drivers licenses are for U.S. citizens to license them to operate heavy machinery on the US roads.  It is also used as a legally accepted form of ID.  It is also useful if you want to sneak a peak at someone's real birthday.

Why would an UNDOCUMENTED (aka illegal) immigrant be allowed these rights?

I love immigrants.  We ARE an awesome melting pot here.  But there are right ways of doing things, and wrong ways.  And we can't be patting people on the head that break the rules and say "aaaw, it's okay..  here, have a licence..."

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #46 on: November 13, 2007, 04:16:47 AM »
I believe U.S. drivers licenses are for U.S. citizens to license them to operate heavy machinery on the US roads.  It is also used as a legally accepted form of ID.  It is also useful if you want to sneak a peak at someone's real birthday.  Why would an UNDOCUMENTED (aka illegal) immigrant be allowed these rights?

Outstanding question.  The most pervasive response is something along the lines of another question......"What are you going to do, deport everyone?  They're already here".  As if the fact that they have broken our immigration laws is apparently irrelevent


I love immigrants.  We ARE an awesome melting pot here.  But there are right ways of doing things, and wrong ways.  And we can't be patting people on the head that break the rules and say "aaaw, it's okay..  here, have a licence..."

Absolutely on the mark Seamus.  YET, such sentiment gets us folks labled racist, bigot, uncaring, uncompassionate, anti-immigrant, etc.  Apparently becasue we don't want to allow mass crossing at will, we apparently don't want any.  Go figure    :-\     Immigration IS what has made this country great, that and its founding documents, the Constitution & Declaration of Independence.  Some how though, frequently the open border contingent fails to recognize that we recognize that. 
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Seamus

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #47 on: November 13, 2007, 04:42:22 AM »
I believe U.S. drivers licenses are for U.S. citizens to license them to operate heavy machinery on the US roads.  It is also used as a legally accepted form of ID.  It is also useful if you want to sneak a peak at someone's real birthday.  Why would an UNDOCUMENTED (aka illegal) immigrant be allowed these rights?

Outstanding question.  The most pervasive response is something along the lines of another question......"What are you going to do, deport everyone?  They're already here".  As if the fact that they have broken our immigration laws is apparently irrelevent

What would be the most fiscally responsible response to a person illegally coming into our country, and what is the most responsible?  And (hopefully) are they the same?

I refer to the exorbitant cost of incarceration if we throw them in jail, but if we just send them home, they'll just return the same way they got here before.  I know when I was younger, I was punished for doing wrong, and I learned not to do wrong.  I think the death penalty might be extreme, obviously, but how can we show people that "NO, you may NOT come here illegally and if you do you do you will be punished!"

And as far as deporting them all back, WTH not?  They're both CRIMINALS and Non-Citizens!  I can tell you how excited *I* am about having a person who is not an American but who IS a criminal living next to me.

I love immigrants.  We ARE an awesome melting pot here.  But there are right ways of doing things, and wrong ways.  And we can't be patting people on the head that break the rules and say "aaaw, it's okay..  here, have a licence..."

Quote
Absolutely on the mark Seamus.  YET, such sentiment gets us folks labled racist, bigot, uncaring, uncompassionate, anti-immigrant, etc.  Apparently becasue we don't want to allow mass crossing at will, we apparently don't want any.  Go figure    :-\     Immigration IS what has made this country great, that and its founding documents, the Constitution & Declaration of Independence.  Some how though, frequently the open border contingent fails to recognize that we recognize that. 

That's just silly...  I'm not any of those things.  But honestly, while I am struggling to put myself in a box and identify myself, I rarely care what other people label me as.

I believe in Amnesty!  If you CAN reach our shores, and ask for amnesty due to persecution, I think we should offer then sanctuary!  But if they are not in immediate danger then there is no reason they can't follow our procedures!

I mean, WHY do people want to come here??  Because we're a great nation!  So, IF we're a great nation, why do they want to come here without following our rules??  It makes NO sense!

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #48 on: November 13, 2007, 07:01:17 AM »

What would be the most fiscally responsible response to a person illegally coming into our country, and what is the most responsible?  And (hopefully) are they the same?


That depends on why they entered illegally. Assuming all cases are the same is a short-sighted approach.


I refer to the exorbitant cost of incarceration if we throw them in jail, but if we just send them home, they'll just return the same way they got here before.  I know when I was younger, I was punished for doing wrong, and I learned not to do wrong.  I think the death penalty might be extreme, obviously, but how can we show people that "NO, you may NOT come here illegally and if you do you do you will be punished!"


When I was younger and punished for doing something wrong, I sometimes ended up asking why what I had done was wrong, because the reasons were not always obvious. And I'm still asking why it's wrong for people to come here without the bureaucratic nightmare that we currently have in place. I've seen all the arguments for it. Too many people, criminals, ruining the culture, et cetera, and they simply do not stand up to any sort of rational examination, imo. People traveling here and making private agreements to work or buy things does not harm anyone, infringes on no one's rights. So why should we make legally coming here so difficult that some folks think risking death to get here and imprisonment once they get here is preferable?


And as far as deporting them all back, WTH not?  They're both CRIMINALS and Non-Citizens!  I can tell you how excited *I* am about having a person who is not an American but who IS a criminal living next to me.


Criminals? And why? Because they broke a law to come here for the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families? Are they bad people because of that? I think they are not.


But if they are not in immediate danger then there is no reason they can't follow our procedures!


Indeed. And so they wait. And wait. And wait. Meanwhile, their family starves. Or meanwhile one gets in and the rest are left behind, and they wait. And I don't mean a few hours. Or a few days. Or a few months. Years. Sometimes a decade or more. And you wonder why some people don't want to follow the procedure?


I mean, WHY do people want to come here??  Because we're a great nation!  So, IF we're a great nation, why do they want to come here without following our rules??  It makes NO sense!


Actually, it makes a great deal of sense. They want to come here without following the rules because they don't have time to wait while their families need food and shelter and clothing. Because risking death to get here is preferable to living in a one room shack made of scrap materials and wondering when the next meal will come. Risking imprisonment is, apparently, preferable to paying the fees and navigating the bureaucracy that stand in the way.

The question is not why don't people want to follow the rules. The question is why do our rules have to be so burdensome that people think risking death to get here is a preferable option. And the answer is that our rules do not need to be so burdensome. While Sirs likes to talk about how he supports immigration, and I see you claim to also support it, the fact of the matter is that both of you are also supporting regulations that have the direct effect of keeping people out of the country and creating a black market for labor that entices many people to try being here illegally.

(And Sirs will jump in soon and, I'm sure, explain that he doesn't want to keep anyone out of the country, he just wants them to come here legally. This, of course, does not change the fact that he argues in support of regulations that do in fact keep people from being able to enter. He'll probably say that is wrong also, but he and I have already had that conversation, and I don't intend to suffer through it again.)

Illegal immigration is not like stealing or murder. Immigration itself infringes on no one's rights. Theft and murder would be theft and murder even without laws. Illegal immigration only exists because there are laws restricting severely what should otherwise, imo, be ordinary behavior.

You say, "IF we're a great nation, why do they want to come here without following our rules?" I say, if the U.S. is a great nation, and is so in part because of immigration that was much more open in the past, then it doesn't to be oppressive in its immigration laws today. I say, if people by the millions find risking death and imprisonment to be here preferable to legal immigration, then there is clearly something wrong with our laws. Sometimes the law is wrong, and the solution to that problem is never going to be finding more ways to punish people for disobeying the law that is wrong.
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])--

Seamus

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #49 on: November 13, 2007, 02:25:40 PM »

What would be the most fiscally responsible response to a person illegally coming into our country, and what is the most responsible?  And (hopefully) are they the same?


That depends on why they entered illegally. Assuming all cases are the same is a short-sighted approach.


First and foremost, thank you for discussing this in a rational and...  non-heated way. :)  I agree with you that not all cases are the same. 

Quote


I refer to the exorbitant cost of incarceration if we throw them in jail, but if we just send them home, they'll just return the same way they got here before.  I know when I was younger, I was punished for doing wrong, and I learned not to do wrong.  I think the death penalty might be extreme, obviously, but how can we show people that "NO, you may NOT come here illegally and if you do you do you will be punished!"


When I was younger and punished for doing something wrong, I sometimes ended up asking why what I had done was wrong, because the reasons were not always obvious. And I'm still asking why it's wrong for people to come here without the bureaucratic nightmare that we currently have in place. I've seen all the arguments for it. Too many people, criminals, ruining the culture, et cetera, and they simply do not stand up to any sort of rational examination, imo. People traveling here and making private agreements to work or buy things does not harm anyone, infringes on no one's rights. So why should we make legally coming here so difficult that some folks think risking death to get here and imprisonment once they get here is preferable?

See, here is what my issue is, and what I hear from a number of people on different subjects.  It's not WHY it's illegal.  It's THAT it is illegal.  I agree that if the red-tape is choking people and keeping people who need to get here out, then it should be changed.  (I know VERY little about immigration law.)  But the fact of the matter is that it IS illegal.  Thy ARE criminals.  Personally, I think marijuana should be legal.  I have never done it and have no desire to.  But the fact that the government spends so much on protecting us from this PLANT...  seems crazy to me.  However, until the law changes, I will report the pot growers down the street.  It's ILLEGAL right now.

On a side note, when you were punished for something you didn't see obvious, and asked about it afterwards, did you still learn not to do it?  Just my curiosity.

Quote

And as far as deporting them all back, WTH not?  They're both CRIMINALS and Non-Citizens!  I can tell you how excited *I* am about having a person who is not an American but who IS a criminal living next to me.


Criminals? And why? Because they broke a law to come here for the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families? Are they bad people because of that? I think they are not.


Yes.  Yes, because they broke the law.  I want them to have the opportunities.  They are not "bad" for desiring it, certainly.  But it is U.S. Law that you do X, Y,(and possibly A,E,D,F,T,W,H,Y,U,L AND P) in order for you to get here.  So, when there is a tedious list of things to do, I find it is good to start at the beginning.  But I don't think it's right that they try and CUT in LINE.

Quote


But if they are not in immediate danger then there is no reason they can't follow our procedures!


Indeed. And so they wait. And wait. And wait. Meanwhile, their family starves. Or meanwhile one gets in and the rest are left behind, and they wait. And I don't mean a few hours. Or a few days. Or a few months. Years. Sometimes a decade or more. And you wonder why some people don't want to follow the procedure?


Then we NEED to change the procedure.  I agree with you that if a family is starving, they should be able to ask for assistance from us.  I don't know what the proper response would be, but we would be morally required to do SOMETHING.  However to say it's okay to come over and you can ignore the laws would be wrong.  Yes, we need to correct this on our end.  But STILL, until then, please don't break our rules!  It makes me, personally, want to say "No, I'm not going to help you, because you can't seem to follow our rules.".  I'll grant you that if immigration is THAT difficult, we Americans need to look at those laws.  But there are a LOT of laws we need to be looking at.  Gays in the miltary, legalization of marijuana, immigration laws AND border protection laws.  Gun laws, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, non-smoking laws...  It doesn't mean that people can ignore them however.

As always, these are my opinions, and if I've said anything personally offensive, please let me know.

Quote

I mean, WHY do people want to come here??  Because we're a great nation!  So, IF we're a great nation, why do they want to come here without following our rules??  It makes NO sense!


Actually, it makes a great deal of sense. They want to come here without following the rules because they don't have time to wait while their families need food and shelter and clothing. Because risking death to get here is preferable to living in a one room shack made of scrap materials and wondering when the next meal will come. Risking imprisonment is, apparently, preferable to paying the fees and navigating the bureaucracy that stand in the way.

The question is not why don't people want to follow the rules. The question is why do our rules have to be so burdensome that people think risking death to get here is a preferable option. And the answer is that our rules do not need to be so burdensome. While Sirs likes to talk about how he supports immigration, and I see you claim to also support it, the fact of the matter is that both of you are also supporting regulations that have the direct effect of keeping people out of the country and creating a black market for labor that entices many people to try being here illegally.

(And Sirs will jump in soon and, I'm sure, explain that he doesn't want to keep anyone out of the country, he just wants them to come here legally. This, of course, does not change the fact that he argues in support of regulations that do in fact keep people from being able to enter. He'll probably say that is wrong also, but he and I have already had that conversation, and I don't intend to suffer through it again.)

Illegal immigration is not like stealing or murder. Immigration itself infringes on no one's rights. Theft and murder would be theft and murder even without laws. Illegal immigration only exists because there are laws restricting severely what should otherwise, imo, be ordinary behavior.

You say, "IF we're a great nation, why do they want to come here without following our rules?" I say, if the U.S. is a great nation, and is so in part because of immigration that was much more open in the past, then it doesn't to be oppressive in its immigration laws today. I say, if people by the millions find risking death and imprisonment to be here preferable to legal immigration, then there is clearly something wrong with our laws. Sometimes the law is wrong, and the solution to that problem is never going to be finding more ways to punish people for disobeying the law that is wrong.


I missed this entire section in my reply.  I'm glad I "preview"ed it.

Honestly, you bring up some great information.  So, hear me out a second.  I believe that we should protect our borders and be careful of who comes in.  We DO have people trying to come after us.  We're at war.  I believe in walls and military and guards and checkpoints and documentation. 

With that being said, I agree that if there are people who need food, shelter, clothing, etc, and our rules are too burdensome, then those need to change as well.  I think that America IS the land of the brave, and within our borders, you SHOULD be free to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We need to change our rules.

Can anyone tell me, if an family wants to become Americans, what is the current method?  Do they pay fees?  Do they have to seek a lawyer?  Do they have to have sex with the mayor? (joke, hopefully!)  Do they have to go to an American embassy?  Why is it so hard for people to come here legally?


Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2007, 04:02:59 PM »
>>Why would an UNDOCUMENTED (aka illegal) immigrant be allowed these rights?<<

Here's the reason liberals like the idea: The Motor Voter Act.

Seamus

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2007, 04:45:34 PM »
>>Why would an UNDOCUMENTED (aka illegal) immigrant be allowed these rights?<<

Here's the reason liberals like the idea: The Motor Voter Act.

Why I agree it's probably crossed some peoples minds, you can't say it's the reason liberals (all) like it.  I personally am FOR the Motor Votor Act so that it's easier for more AMERICANS to vote.  I don't WANT illegal people voting in our elections!  (btw, I consider myself a liberal.)

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2007, 05:00:35 PM »
>>Why I agree it's probably crossed some peoples minds, you can't say it's the reason liberals (all) like it.<<

I'm sure it's crossed A LOT of liberals minds. As for all liberals, I don't think all liberals are smart enough to see it for what it is. Others will simply deny it.

Seamus

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #53 on: November 13, 2007, 05:07:04 PM »
>>Why I agree it's probably crossed some peoples minds, you can't say it's the reason liberals (all) like it.<<

I'm sure it's crossed A LOT of liberals minds. As for all liberals, I don't think all liberals are smart enough to see it for what it is. Others will simply deny it.

Let me understand what you're saying.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote
As for all liberals, I don't think all liberals are smart enough to see it for what it is.
Now, are you saying that no liberal is smart enough to understand the "Motor Voter Law"?

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #54 on: November 13, 2007, 05:17:54 PM »
I suppose I should retract that. I should have said that most liberals don't understand that there even IS a motor voter law. Those who do are likely to deny it's true intent.

Seamus

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #55 on: November 13, 2007, 05:27:39 PM »
I suppose I should retract that. I should have said that most liberals don't understand that there even IS a motor voter law. Those who do are likely to deny it's true intent.

Well...  hmm...   I guess what I'm going to read into what you are saying is that "Those who do are likely to deny what I believe is to be it's true intent." as I believe you are implying the only reason the motor voter law is so that illegals can vote.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #56 on: November 13, 2007, 06:00:07 PM »
I suppose I should retract that. I should have said that most liberals don't understand that there even IS a motor voter law. Those who do are likely to deny it's true intent.

Well...  hmm...   I guess what I'm going to read into what you are saying is that "Those who do are likely to deny what I believe is to be it's true intent." as I believe you are implying the only reason the motor voter law is so that illegals can vote.

As far right as Rich can get, I tend to have to lean a little in his direction, on this point, Seamus.  No one is advocating that legal Americans should not be allowed to vote.  In fact, it's an obligation in my book. 

That said, it's also just as important to make said elections as fraudless as possible.  ACTUAL picture ID is a good thing, and SHOULD be required.  This is in no means some backhanded racist thought, because it supposedly is disenfranchising a certain population because they lack the where with all in obtaining a picture ID.  It simply helps to reinforce that the actual person pulling the lever is the SAME person that's a legal American.  Motor voter is a perfect vehicle (pun intended) to facilitate voter fraud, since it's done with little, if any, background check or validation of if that person is not only the person voting but if they're even legal to vote. (and we won't even go into the garbage of supposed mass voter disenfranchisement in Florida & Ohio, given report after report after report of it NOT being the case, and not 1 legal court case arguing that it did)

Point being, who pushed "motor voter"?  Which party?  Who's opposing the idea of photo ID to vote?  Which party?  One then needs to deduce why, and the "why's" here aren't that hard to theorize 
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Seamus

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #57 on: November 13, 2007, 07:18:53 PM »
I suppose I should retract that. I should have said that most liberals don't understand that there even IS a motor voter law. Those who do are likely to deny it's true intent.

Well...  hmm...   I guess what I'm going to read into what you are saying is that "Those who do are likely to deny what I believe is to be it's true intent." as I believe you are implying the only reason the motor voter law is so that illegals can vote.

As far right as Rich can get, I tend to have to lean a little in his direction, on this point, Seamus.  No one is advocating that legal Americans should not be allowed to vote.  In fact, it's an obligation in my book. 

Agreed
Quote

That said, it's also just as important to make said elections as fraudless as possible.  ACTUAL picture ID is a good thing, and SHOULD be required.  This is in no means some backhanded racist thought, because it supposedly is disenfranchising a certain population because they lack the where with all in obtaining a picture ID.  It simply helps to reinforce that the actual person pulling the lever is the SAME person that's a legal American.  Motor voter is a perfect vehicle (pun intended) to facilitate voter fraud, since it's done with little, if any, background check or validation of if that person is not only the person voting but if they're even legal to vote. (and we won't even go into the garbage of supposed mass voter disenfranchisement in Florida & Ohio, given report after report after report of it NOT being the case, and not 1 legal court case arguing that it did)

Point being, who pushed "motor voter"?  Which party?  Who's opposing the idea of photo ID to vote?  Which party?  One then needs to deduce why, and the "why's" here aren't that hard to theorize 

See, you are saying party, while I don't THINK party had been brought up.  I was discussing as my opinion as a liberal.  I rarely follow the general flow of the Democrat party.  But I am am member, because we really only HAVE two parties.

 Who pushes motor voter? Democrats I would imagine.  Who's opposing the photo ID requirement? I haven't heard much about it, honestly.  Is it the Democrats?  In my opinion, there could be little greater thing that some security to our voting!  I have often wondered, ever since I COULD vote, how come you didn't have to show ID.  It just seemed insane to me.

Basically, I have not thought about how easy you make it sound for people to get a drivers licenses.  I believe that as hard as we want to make it for people to get fraudulent drivers licenses, we should make it just as hard to register to vote.  And visa versa.  Does that make sense?


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #58 on: November 13, 2007, 07:46:13 PM »
See, you are saying party, while I don't THINK party had been brought up.  I was discussing as my opinion as a liberal.  I rarely follow the general flow of the Democrat party.  But I am am member, because we really only HAVE two parties.

The only reason I bring in party, is that the Legislation is composed of primarily 2 parties, and it is those legislators who facilitate said laws.  Pesonally, I'm a conservative, and not connected to any party either,


Who pushes motor voter? Democrats I would imagine.  Who's opposing the photo ID requirement? I haven't heard much about it, honestly.  Is it the Democrats?  In my opinion, there could be little greater thing that some security to our voting!  I have often wondered, ever since I COULD vote, how come you didn't have to show ID.  It just seemed insane to me.

It IS insane


Basically, I have not thought about how easy you make it sound for people to get a drivers licenses.  I believe that as hard as we want to make it for people to get fraudulent drivers licenses, we should make it just as hard to register to vote.  And visa versa.  Does that make sense?

Yes
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Pat Robertson endorses Rudy
« Reply #59 on: November 13, 2007, 08:42:36 PM »
>>As far right as Rich can get ... <<

I'm anti-death penalty. How far right is that? Now-a-days I guess defending your country makes you way out in right field.

<chuckle>

Yes Seamus, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying the left uses the motor voter law to register people who are not eligible to vote, legal or illegal.