llegal immigrant rescues boy

[sirs]

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 .

....but the fact is I've never denied that I'm sure there have been many who have complained about immigrants & immigration in gneral over the above 200 mentioned.  That's where your hyperbole (.In other words...") hits its speed bump.  There were no other words, there were the original words minus your spin on them

[Religious Dick]

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?

Here's my take  - maybe I've been in the I/T industry too long, but I think people with Big Ideas and no contingency plan in case they go south should be ignored under all circumstances.

I'm willing to give most libertarian ideas a spin - if we make drugs legal, and it doesn't work out, make 'em illegal again.

If we get rid of government programs, and we have people starving in the street, they can be re-implemented.

If we get rid of taxes, and the government can't function, re-impose the taxes.

But if we open the borders, and half of Mexico moves up here and it doesn't work out - then what, genius?

Doh!

[Stray Pooch]

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. 

Since the ongoing rebuttals are getting too long for even me, I will summarize.  (Well, ya know, POOCH summarize.)


You suggest I have simple suppositions, as opposed to simple math (Good line, btw).  I think your suggestions are simplistic as well.  The truth, as always, probably lies between us.  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.

You object to my points about security checkpoints because you miss them entirely.  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.  We don't have enough security now.  Increasing the need and the requirements would only make a messy situation worse.  Actually securing the border would decrease the flow of illegal traffic.  It would also decrease the flow of legal traffic - or make it necessary for those coming over the border to get legal.   That's why I favor a strong border.  We should have a wall in place to stop the illegals and we should certainly not lay out water and other goodies for them along the way. 

<<Not like you suggesting that I'm some sort of dummy for wanting to leave the door unlocked, eh?>>

Of course not.  I'm suggesting that you want to leave the door unlocked.  Your reasons, I asssume, are humanitarian and not stupidity. 

<<This is a big "house" and we're going to need national IDs and routine identification checks to create the sort of security you seem to be looking for. Maybe that seems like a good idea to you. I tend to think it would be another move toward a police state, and so I think that would therefore be a bad idea.>>

You make my point.  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.   

<<It's a shame to see you stooping to coloring open border proponents as stupid people who are unaware of national security or law enforcement issues.>>

I have done no such thing.  I haven't even made any statement that might reasonably be interpretted that way.

<<You might want to back off a bit there, pal. I could use the "I bet some of your best friends are" retort, but I don't. I could say a lot less kind things about what I think of the national security argument for restricting immigration. I could talk about how it seems selfish to me for U.S. folks to brag about how great America is, how wonderful it is to live in this capitalist society where we have so much to be thankful for, and yet want to treat people who want to come here and take part as if they are automatically all potential thieves, murderers and terrorists. I could talk about how frakking callous it is to see people so desperate to make a better life they the risk death and imprisonment to do something about it and demanding they should be punished by not only kicking them out but trying to make sure they can never come back because they don't have the money or the time to wait to feed their families. I could talk about seeing human suffering and wondering how some people could so gorram selfish as to turn their backs on it and claim we've got to worry about terrorists. I could talk about how inane I think it is for the U.S. to benefit from capitalism and liberty and yet try to deny the people the benefits of liberty to trade their labor and goods with us. I could say a lot of things that I think are seriously wrong with the anti-open border positions, but I'm not making those arguments because I'm trying to respect that you're a good person, Pooch, and we have a difference of opinion. But if you really want to make me out to be the bad guy here, then, by all means, don't let me stop you. I'm used to it, and I'll be more than willing to give back as much as I get.>>

You could talk about all those things - and you did.   I see no reason to back off.  You certainly directly insulted me and seem to have implied I am racist.  And I have to say, that last sounds a bit self-pitying, also a trait I wouldn't expect from you.  You and I have a long history on this forum and ninety percent of it damn good.  I have no problem being attacked on principle.  You are as good a debater as anybody on here and we frequently, but generally civilly, disagree because of fundamental differences.  My arguments are about the points you are making,  not you personally.  If you take it otherwise, no hay mi problema, dude.



<<No, actually, it is a perfectly good analogy. Because strict control of the border is in actually interfering with people legally obtaining private property. Your objection to illegal entry might not violate someone else's rights, but your support for basically trying to prevent people from coming here to trade their private property does. It's one thing to object to trespassers on your land. Quite another to object to your neighbor having someone over on his property without your permission. It's one thing to decide you don't want to trade with someone, and quite another to decide that person should not be allowed to trade with your neighbor.>>

I think it is a false analogy for several reasons, but more to the point, I deny that anyone from another country has any right to obtain "property" of any kind in this country illegally. 



<<The point was we can change our legal relationship with other countries anytime we want to do so.>>

mm-kay.  I'll concede that. 



<<I cannot agree. For one, stepping across the U.S./Mexico border does not do a damn thing to make you less secure. For another, how can security be a right? It cannot be genuinely achieved, so how could you possibly have a right to it?>>

Oy.  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.  Keeping the border secure keeps me more secure.  That doesn't guarantee I will not get killed by a homegrown terrorist, a white tenth generation American junkie or a legal alien who's part of a gang.  But again, we are talking about locking the door.  As to not having the right to security, that's true, if the second amendment means nothing.  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). 


<<I do not agree. The laws are violating rights, imo, because they interfere with the basic liberty of people to enter into private trade agreements. The rights we take for granted here, we deny to others by insisting that they must pay hundreds of dollars first and then wait for permission to do what for other people is their basic right: cross a border and look for work.>>

Not basic rights.  And expecting people to follow legal methods to transact business is true in pretty much all businesses. 



<<Or we could just change the law now, and save ourselves the money and effort needed to do something completely unnecessary and unjust.>>

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

<<Most of the Mexicans coming here are not demanding the southwest be ceded to Mexico either. You broadbrush with these statements, and you expect me to not say anything that might sound like I'm implying you don't like Mexicans.>>

Disliking the idea of ceding US land has nothing to do with disliking Mexicans.


<<You're joking right? You think the term Irish-American is recent invention? In any case, you haven't said anything that refutes the fact the complaints about immigrants coming here and changing things have been around for at least the last 200 years. The complaints about immigrants who were poor, criminals, not learning to speak English, not assimilating, et cetera, all are old complaints, and it's kinda humorous to watch people tell me now how all those immigrants were really good people who came here to learn English and assimilate and all that jazz.>>

Well, laugh it up, but the Irish did not come here to be Irish.  They came here to become American - and they did.

<<I'm not taking anything to an extreme, and I'm not arguing from a position of wanting a weak government. (And for the record, it's not a weak government I seek, but a just one.) I'm arguing from the position that people have basic rights that should be protected and that part of that is the liberty to exercise those basic rights. This is not extreme unless you think there is something extreme about protecting people's rights. I don't. Maybe you do.>>

I think you are being extreme, you just don't see it as such.  I do not think you consciously want a weak government.  I think you want a government that interferes less in your life - a perfectly rational desire.  But the effect of that bias is to make you against a strong government.  This doesn't imply a moral judgement.  A lot of folks like Thomas Jefferson agree with you.  I don't.  I see nothing extreme about protecting ACTUAL rights.  I see something extreme about creating rights that don't exist.

[Universe Prince]

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.

All my fault. Got it.

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.

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't see the same solution you do. I think expecting government control to solve the problem is wishful thinking. The "war on poverty" has contributed to the continuation of poverty. The "war on drugs" has a entrenched a highly profitable black market in drugs. A "war" on illegal immigration is not something I see as likely to have the outcome predicted for it.

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.

That ain't math. It won't make people do anything. And no, it's not leaving a "door" unlocked. There is not a door there. What I am suggesting is more like objecting to the building of a wall across a road where there was no wall before.

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.

And a wall with vast arrays of surveillance equipment and armed guards is going to be efficient, cheap and easy 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.

And the government efforts to strictly control the border are somehow going to result in less mess and less bureaucracy? Maybe I'm cynical, but I find your objection weak.

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.

How do you expect this play out? I expect a national ID card for the same reason employers currently have to asked for proof of citizenship like "Social Security" numbers. Frankly, I am considerably less bothered by checkpoints than I am by a national ID card. In fact, I'd say most folks are, since I don't hear too many civil libertarians stirring up protest over the border checkpoints we currently have in place. Why you think they're all going to have a fit if we had more checkpoints, I don't know. Why you think strict control of immigration is not going to result, in part at least, with a national ID card, I cannot figure out.

The only people I want controlled are the ones entering our country illegally.

Well, at least you admit you're looking for control over people.

I don't want state checkpoints, though you keep trying to bring interstate travel into the issue.

I don't understand why state borders are less worth protecting than a national border.

I deny that anyone from another country has any right to obtain "property" of any kind in this country illegally.

No one is arguing that someone from another country has a right to obtain property illegally. The argument is they have a right to trade legally.

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.

It is simple, not simplistic. Being simple doesn't make it wrong. Your counterargument, however, I think is wrong. An individual going to the gas station does not make you less secure, but another individual who does so may kill you. So shall we control access to gas stations? You'd actually have a case there because then you'd actually be on private property. But I don't expect you to argue that gas stations should be surrounded by walls and armed guards.

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).

We don't have to guarantee free speech. That doesn't require anyone to provide anything. It does not require control of other people. It only requires that people not be stopped from speaking their mind. The Second Amendment doesn't require someone else to provide you with a firearm. All it does is prevent the government from interfering in you owning one.

And expecting people to follow legal methods to transact business is true in pretty much all businesses.

That does not mean all laws interfering in business are good.

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

I disagree. We need to change the law now, not find new ways to enforce it.

Disliking the idea of ceding US land has nothing to do with disliking Mexicans.

I agree. But that doesn't change your broadbrushing one iota.

Well, laugh it up, but the Irish did not come here to be Irish.  They came here to become American - and they did.

Did they come to be American, or did they come to find a better life? I think it's a little, um, misleading to assume that all previous legal immigrants came here with a goal of being American above all else. I would venture to guess that most of them came here with the same basic primary goal as most of the immigrants who come here now, to make a better life for themselves. If they believed they could have done so elsewhere, I'm sure they would have gone there.

And while we're talking about past immigrants, let's not forget that in past times, immigrating here legally was considerably and substantially easier than it is now. How many Irish (or German or Chinese or Italian, et cetera) immigrants in the past would have come here legally if they had been required to suffer the requirements currently in place? We don't know. But contemplate what the "Greatest Generation" might be like if the immigration laws had been then as they are now.

I see something extreme about creating rights that don't exist.

Like a right to security? The Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to security. It guarantees a right to defend yourself. The two are not the same. Kinda like happiness and the pursuit of happiness are not the same.

[Universe 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.

That is a large part of it. Which, in itself, would not be so bad. However, there are many people who are focused on criminals and poor often unskilled workers coming in, and so the argument is that the change is going be that we are overrun by criminals and reduced to a Third World country by the poor immigrants who sap our resources and drive everything into the ground. The thing is, these are the same complaints against immigration that have been made for centuries now. If you ever get a chance to look at anti-immigration literature of the past, these are among the common arguments used for why we need to control the borders. And yet, we are not overrun by criminals and are still a leading world power. Most of the immigrants who came here were looking for a way to a better life for themselves and their families. And for the most part, they found it here. I think that was good. I think it could still be good, if we'd let it.

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.

[Plane]

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?

So Thankee sai   

[Universe Prince]

The Dark Tower saga by Stephen King needs a better ending.

I agree.

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?

Exactly.