Imigration

[Jennifer Williams]

Who is Jennifer Williams? I think I've fallen in love with her.

I'm me, that's who I am A better question is who are you? Your profile is all blank...

And I'm so glad to have a debater on my side; I feel a little bad for Thorne, he needs another person on his side to make this fair.

[Jennifer Williams]

Leo9 hit the nail on the head:

some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other.

I am of the opinion that there is no criteria that makes another group of people "less good", including criminal status. Evan a criminal is a human being, which is why we don't just chop off their heads like was done in the old days.

So call them criminals if that makes you feel better; they are still not an "other", it is still wrong to ignore their miserable circumstances and try to justify why you deserve better than they do.

Not in the US. While they may not be able to get a driver's license, their children can be sent to schools, and they are eligible for both free breakfasts and lunches.

We're feeding hungry children! Oh, the horror! Oh, right, they're someone else's children. Well let them starve, then, carry on.

They get medical aid simply by showing up in a clinic or emergency room.

Last time I checked, that was what an emergency room or clinic was for. You'd get help if you showed up in an emergency room...oh, wait, you get to stand on the "I'm more human than you are." line.

Don't force me to place notices in every language because they aren't interested in learning mine.

1) Go to Europe. Almost every sign there is multi-lingual. Society has not fallen apart.

2) The United States does not have an official language. And we shouldn't. Many countries have several prominant languages (like Canada is both English and French and a few others, I believe). They run just fine.

3) My guess is you haven't bothered to personally get to know any of "these people." I get to know a lot of all sorts of people in my job, and when the same person comes back over a span of time and they're here for longer and longer, guess what? They learn English! Most of them are working their butts off to learn our language- it's just that so many of them are new that to the outside observer who doesn't bother to get to know the individual people, and sees them only as a mass group, it would appear that they aren't learning English.

Talk to some of them sometime, if you dare. Become friends with them, learn who they are. See if the ones who have been here for five months can speak English (could you?), who have been here for a year, who have been here for five years.

Maybe you'll even learn some of their language. Unless, of course, you think one language is better than another.

Believe me, nothing would please me more than for the entire world to be united under one flag, one government, one economy, so we could all travel anywhere we wished without worrying about borders. All people would be equal, there would be no hoarding of resources, and peace would reign over the Earth. I think it would be wonderful if we could all live together without laws to restrict our freedoms. But right here, right now, the world doesn't work that way.

Which is why some of us are trying so hard to change that. Saying "things aren't perfect so bend to the current way of things." doesn't cut it. If things are wrong, fix them, change them. Maybe perfect world peace is an unreality, however; constantly striving towards it would be a necessary part of our humanity. To simply give up and say "Well, it's good enough." doesn't fly.

[Jennifer Williams]

I feel this news article is quite relevant to our current debate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/201005...s/ynews_ts2186

[Stealth694]

Sounds like something that happened alot in the 70's-80's.

A pregnant Mexican woman would stick close to the rio grande and when she went into labor she would dash across the river and either go to a Hospital or get the police to arrest her and take her to the Hospital, when the Child was born it was an american citizen and the Mother was ipso facto an american citizen.

They changed that law in the 90's (?) and this is where we get the family with a legal American child and an illegal Mexican parent.

[leo9]

However, as a US citizen I have certain rights guaranteed to me under the Constitution which are not necessarily guaranteed to non-citizens.

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

[Thorne]

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

Again someone misrepresenting what I said. I agree with you! There are certain basic human rights which all persons have. But there are other rights which are granted to American citizens, just as there are certain rights granted to British citizens, or Canadian citizens, or citizens of any country. These are ADDITIONAL rights, over and above those inalienable rights which all people have.

[Thorne]

I feel a little bad for Thorne, he needs another person on his side to make this fair.

Don't feel bad for me. I rather enjoy the notoriety.

[Thorne]

I am of the opinion that there is no criteria that makes another group of people "less good", including criminal status. Evan a criminal is a human being, which is why we don't just chop off their heads like was done in the old days.

Once more, for clarification. I don't deny that criminals have rights. Just that they lose SOME rights as a result of their criminal acts, when they have been convicted and sent to prison.

So call them criminals if that makes you feel better; they are still not an "other", it is still wrong to ignore their miserable circumstances and try to justify why you deserve better than they do.

And another misrepresentation. When did I claim I "deserve" better than they do? All I've said was that they have committed criminal acts and, when convicted, should be punished for those commissions. I would expect to receive the same treatment if I committed a criminal act. How is that claiming I'm better?

We're feeding hungry children! Oh, the horror! Oh, right, they're someone else's children. Well let them starve, then, carry on.

I saw a letter the other day (I can't find it now, sorry) in which the Gov. of Arizona talked about these children. According to her they are receiving these meals because their parents have no DECLARED income, yet the children are far from starving (some are even overweight) and large quantities of this "free" food is discarded every day because they don't eat it!

But once more I'm being painted with the wrong brush. My concern is not that we are feeding these children, but that their parents are not putting into the system to help pay for it themselves! When my kids went to school they had to BUY their meals, or bring them from home, because OUR income was on the record. At the same time, my tax money was going towards feeding children whose parents were making at least as much as I was but NOT paying taxes on it.

Last time I checked, that was what an emergency room or clinic was for. You'd get help if you showed up in an emergency room...oh, wait, you get to stand on the "I'm more human than you are." line.

And again! It's not the services themselves that bother me. I fully agree with treating those who need treatment. But when it comes time to pay the piper, they provide false ID's, false addresses, false everything, and walk off. Meanwhile, you and I, who do pay our bills, are hit with inflated charges to cover these illegals. And the hospitals generally are not permitted to track them down.

1) Go to Europe. Almost every sign there is multi-lingual. Society has not fallen apart.

It's not doing too well, either.

2) The United States does not have an official language. And we shouldn't. Many countries have several prominant languages (like Canada is both English and French and a few others, I believe). They run just fine.

No, officially we do not have one language. But if you're a business person, try putting up a sign which says, "Spanish Not Spoken Here" and see what happens. This happened several years ago in Philadelphia, I believe. A man running a family-owned business in a neighborhood which was becoming increasingly Hispanic posted just such a sign, since neither he nor his family, who were his employees, spoke any Spanish. The city FORCED him to remove the sign and, if I remember correctly, post signs in Spanish, even though he could not speak the language. I just wonder what would have happened if he'd placed a sign claiming that ENGLISH was not spoken there. My guess is that it would have been all right.

Talk to some of them sometime, if you dare. Become friends with them, learn who they are. See if the ones who have been here for five months can speak English (could you?), who have been here for a year, who have been here for five years.

You're right, I don't know any Hispanics, legal or otherwise. I also don't know any Muslims, or Hindus, or Japanese, or Koreans, or even too many WASPs. I'm a private person and don't make friends. Or even acquaintances.

Maybe you'll even learn some of their language. Unless, of course, you think one language is better than another.

Between high school and college I studied Latin, French and Spanish, and I was terrible in all of them. I had enough trouble with English. And yes, for me, English is a better language. But only because it's the only one I know.

If things are wrong, fix them, change them. Maybe perfect world peace is an unreality, however; constantly striving towards it would be a necessary part of our humanity. To simply give up and say "Well, it's good enough." doesn't fly.

I never said it was good enough. But this is a nation, a civilization, of laws. And these laws should be obeyed UNTIL they've been changed. Ignoring laws you don't like only leads to anarchy.

[Jennifer Williams]

My concern is not that we are feeding these children, but that their parents are not putting into the system to help pay for it themselves!

Well if we allowed them to work legally in legal jobs, then they could put into the system. As it stands now, it's not allowed for them to work a legal job- it's illegal for them to put into the system! Don't make a law that says they can't put into the system and then complain that they're not putting into the system. It's a catch-22; fix one side or the other.

But when it comes time to pay the piper, they provide false ID's, false addresses, false everything, and walk off.

Um...let's see...why on earth would the provide false information...what would happen to them if they provided correct information? Might they be living in fear of being deported?

You're causing your own problem here. If they were allowed to stay, they'd have no reason to hide, no reason to lie.

No, officially we do not have one language. But if you're a business person, try putting up a sign which says, "Spanish Not Spoken Here" and see what happens.

If I was a business person, why on earth would I do this? Why would I prevent people with dollars from spending their money in my store? Most businesses have figured out that a dollar is a dollar, regardless of who's spending it, and so if they can market to both English and non-English speakers and get all of the dollars, they come out richer.

This happened several years ago in Philadelphia, I believe. A man running a family-owned business in a neighborhood which was becoming increasingly Hispanic

You say that like it's a bad thing, as if there's something wrong with Hispanic people. Or rather that they're fine, so long as they're not in his neighborhood.

posted just such a sign, since neither he nor his family, who were his employees, spoke any Spanish. The city FORCED him to remove the sign

They should have let him keep it up- the loss of business he received would have spoken for itself. Apparently dollars from people who speak Spanish are not good enough for him.

and, if I remember correctly, post signs in Spanish, even though he could not speak the language.

Oh no, the Spanish is going to get me! Help! Something different from me, ack, get it off, get it off!

I just wonder what would have happened if he'd placed a sign claiming that ENGLISH was not spoken there. My guess is that it would have been all right.

I would sincerely hope not. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of who it's directed at; and most business owners are smart enough not to alienate their customers.

You're right, I don't know any Hispanics, legal or otherwise.

Well that was obvious. It might do you better to think of them as "Hispanic people", though, not "Hispanics." Just a suggestion.

I also don't know any Muslims, or Hindus, or Japanese, or Koreans, or even too many WASPs. I'm a private person and don't make friends. Or even acquaintances.

Between high school and college I studied Latin, French and Spanish, and I was terrible in all of them. I had enough trouble with English. And yes, for me, English is a better language. But only because it's the only one I know.

And what if Spanish was the only language you knew? What if learning English was hard for you? And some kind soul thought to put up signs in your language, so you could know where the bathroom was? How is this a bad situation?

I never said it was good enough. But this is a nation, a civilization, of laws. And these laws should be obeyed UNTIL they've been changed. Ignoring laws you don't like only leads to anarchy.

Which is why we're trying to change the laws, for the better, not for worse, like this Arizona thing. That's why we're not standing for it; because it's wrong and can't be left to stand. It's not the solution to the problem. It won't solve anything; it will only create more fear and anger about the situation.

[Jennifer Williams]

Don't feel bad for me. I rather enjoy the notoriety.

Well you're certainly holding your own, I'd have to say!

[denuseri]

Psst Jen...dont hold your breath...I havent went off yet with what I think...lol

[Thorne]

It's a catch-22; fix one side or the other.

Silly me! I thought that's what the LAW was for!

Might they be living in fear of being deported?

Only if they are here ILLEGALLY!

You're causing your own problem here. If they were allowed to stay, they'd have no reason to hide, no reason to lie.

If they were LEGAL immigrants, they would be allowed to stay.

If I was a business person, why on earth would I do this? Why would I prevent people with dollars from spending their money in my store?

Why do you assume he was preventing anyone from shopping at his store? The only thing that sign says is that no on there speaks Spanish.

You say that like it's a bad thing, as if there's something wrong with Hispanic people. Or rather that they're fine, so long as they're not in his neighborhood.

Again, you're assuming a bias that is not evident. The neighborhood was becoming increasingly Hispanic, but no one in the store spoke any Spanish. He was simply informing his customers of that problem, not denying them goods or services.

They should have let him keep it up- the loss of business he received would have spoken for itself. Apparently dollars from people who speak Spanish are not good enough for him.

Still assuming his aim was to keep the Spanish speakers out. But even if it were so, if it is a privately owned business, shouldn't that be his choice?

Oh no, the Spanish is going to get me! Help! Something different from me, ack, get it off, get it off!

These reflexive assumptions of fear and hatred are becoming annoying. Stop putting words into my mouth, please. While it is possible that there was some intolerance going on in the man's mind, there's no proof of it. Why you insist on assuming it is beyond me.

The law says that a business cannot refuse service or goods to people because of the race, creed or color. It's a good law, one I support whole-heartedly. Informing people of a largely-Spanish speaking neighborhood that he doesn't speak Spanish does not violate that law. The same would apply if the neighborhood were largely Hungarian, or Swedish, or any other group. Placing signs in your store in the language of the neighborhood is obviously good business. But as far as I know it is not illegal NOT to place such signs. Nor should it be. As you said, if the locals don't feel welcome, it's the business owner who will suffer. That's his problem, not the government's.

Well that was obvious. It might do you better to think of them as "Hispanic people", though, not "Hispanics." Just a suggestion.

I don't care WHAT you want to call them. Hispanics is simply a convenient term I'm using for clarity. It has no discriminatory connotations that I know of.

And what if Spanish was the only language you knew? What if learning English was hard for you? And some kind soul thought to put up signs in your language, so you could know where the bathroom was? How is this a bad situation?

I would be grateful, naturally. But I wouldn't consider it discrimination if he did NOT put up such signs. I would, however, make damned sure I learned enough English to be able find the bathrooms, regardless of how difficult it was.

Which is why we're trying to change the laws, for the better, not for worse, like this Arizona thing. That's why we're not standing for it; because it's wrong and can't be left to stand.

As far as I can determine, this law only gives officials the ability to enforce EXISTING Federal statutes, which the Federal government has NOT been doing. As for whether the laws are bad, I still think that's a matter of opinion.

Oh, and one more thing. Just because I assume the role of Devil's Advocate, don't make the assumption that I'm the Devil himself. I'm not nearly that hot!

[steelish]

I think its more about how the Police can stop someone and ask for said immigration card.

It's a moot point anyway. ALL traffic violators or law violators, regardless of what the police stop them for are asked a standard question immediately; "May I see your ID?"

Is that profiling?

[steelish]

And what if Spanish was the only language you knew? What if learning English was hard for you?

Sorry, but if you immigrate from Mexico and CHOOSE to live in the US, my opinion is that you should learn to speak English. My grandfather immigrated from Mexico in 1919 and FORBID family members to speak spanish. He insisted that being an American meant embracing every aspect of America, including the language. I understand being bilingual. No problem there. But simply not learning the language because it's "hard" to learn is ridiculous. Most corporations offer "speakers of another language" courses to empower their workforce. I know the company I used to work for did. As they transitioned over to computer-run machinery and everyone had to be English speaking the courses were continuously offered...and guess what, many chose to quit rather than even try.

It's absolutely ridiculous to choose to live in another country and then not learn the language. I understand it might take a while to learn it, but eventually immigrants should be able to speak English.

If you chose to move to France and lived in a region that spoke only french, would you learn the language? I know I would, or I would (at the least) continue trying to learn it until I was six feet under.

[DuncanONeil]

So basically because it is hard and/or difficult to accomplish you are then advocating non-enforcement of the law? How do you reconcile that with "The most dangerous laws are the ones that are only enforced when the cops feel like it. It means that you depend on the cops' goodwill, so they can do as they please and nobody dares to argue. That way lies bribery and corruption. " (Leo9)

I can make a difference between vile thugs who extort, abuse, steal, rape or murder and impoverished individuals who are god-fearing, moral and for the most part, law-abiding. I would send the former back to the pits they crawled out of, but I would welcome the latter with open arms. They have, after all, done nothing more than intrude upon land that does not belong to them. And they offer more than they will take.

In England and Wales, trespass is not a crime, for very good reasons. Unfortunately for these people, trespassing beyond a national border is.

So you can pull me up for making a false distiction between "illegal" and "criminal" but, in fact, there is one.

As for imprisoning the illegal aliens, we bang them up for months, not just one, and we keep their kids in gaol too. And we're not above separating mother from child, even to the exgtent of deporting one, but not the other. It doesn't work, so forget it.

[DuncanONeil]

This business about multi-generation non-natives is a polemic. It is easy to say but as a matter of course here we, technically, have multi-generation illegals. Yes technically since the Constitution grants citizenship under specific circumstances.
But the point is that illegals are illegal. As such that is how they should be treated. We have rules for reasons and a border is one of the rules! I used to work at a place where a person could be fired for picking up a nickle off the floor and putting it in their pocket, no it was not a bank or other commercial sales enterprise.

And that's besides the highly trained (at some poorer country's expense) doctors and other experts who keep the NHS going so we don't have to spend money training them.

And, of course, plenty of what such ranters think of as "immigrants" are actually third generation citizens. Eric Pickles was a hard-right Conservative, but when his party started to talk about "sending the Asians back where they came from" he brought them down to earth by pointing out that in his constituency, you could send most of them back where they came from with a bus ticket.

[DuncanONeil]

It's a crime everywhere! Try crossing into Russia, or Iran, or China without a visa or passport. See what it will get you.

If you need any further evidence all you need do is consider the plight of the three student hikers vacationing in Iraq that inadvertently crossed that invisible line.

[DuncanONeil]

I don't think you quite understand! I have no requirement to invite ANYONE into my home. It is my choice and if done it is done under my rules. Regardless of your reasons if you choose on you own to enter you have broken the law. Does your example of hunger absolve them from the law? I think not!

We are currently accepting, as permanent residents, some 1% of our population annually. Perhaps that is not enough! But that change is a Government matter not a repudiation of law. I stated somewhat earlier, somewhere, that as the illegals are some 500,000 annually perhaps the permanent visas need to be 1,000,000. But I suspect that would do little to stem the tide.

As for stealing the "bread" I suspect you are being a bit too literal in that. An illegal taking advantage of any service provided in this country IS in effect stealing from the rest of us, at least those of us that may need said service. Then there are those businesses that are treating illegals better than the citizens of this country. They get better deals on credit, don't have to prove who they are, don't need to prove they will pay it back. This is the "bread" in question!

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?

Do you know how long it can take to wait for a proper visa? What if you were about to die while waiting? What if your children were about to die while waiting, and you knew there was food enough in that house for all, the people inside and also yourselves?

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea. And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.

[Thorne]

If you need any further evidence all you need do is consider the plight of the three student hikers vacationing in Iraq that inadvertently crossed that invisible line.

While I appreciate the support, this might be a bad example. Given the current state of affairs in Iraq, and throughout the region, one has to question the motives of anyone "vacationing" there. And if their motives are pure, I would certainly question their intelligence!

[DuncanONeil]

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

Much of what you call human rights are in fact codified in out laws. But by what you say you are in fact dismissing all law, not just those specific rules. Do you really believe that human rights trump legal rights? What about the human rights of the country's citizens that can not get help because an illegal got there first and got the last of the aid?

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?

Well it might help. But the real problem with taxes are not really the taxes. The problem is the people that are spending the money. What the taxes are and how much, as well as who is paying is hidden in the labyrinth of the Tax Code. The people that spend the money are the ones that make the code! If they could not hide the increases, i.e. an excess profit tax on a business (which said company never pays), things might change. Further there is no indifference to the "suffering" of others. It is just that it is noit the responsibility of the Government to decide for me what I sghould do with my money or assistance!

Not for me.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.

Completely off point!

So to me, when they take those taxes out of my paycheck, it's the same exact thing: I'm helping somebody, somewhere, who needs it more than I do. Could be an elderly American in a nursing home. Could be a hard-working construction worker who's on unemployment; it could be an illegal immigrant who's life could be saved by a bottle of antibiotics.

Were you able to keep that money what would stop you from personally provide the assistance you appear to be willing to provide. How do you think you would feel if you did aid someone? I suspect that you would fell considerably different that you do when you look at the taxes taken from your paycheck without your permission. It would be much more rewarding as well! You do realize that about 30% of the price of everything is actually taxes?

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it. I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out". They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.

First you have to define what it is that is being deserved. Second not everything is equally deserved by everyone. Following you argument to its logical conclusion would mandate that every person in the country receive the exact same salary. But how do you determine that salary? Even more important what would be the result of everyone having the exact same salary?

I would have to disagree; I think this country is great, and is constantly improving all the time.[/QUOTE]

I must presume, based on your statement, that you are relatively young. How can you believe that spending the country into oblivion is an improvement. How can you believe that moving more and more people off the tax rolls to the detriment of those remaining on those rolls is an improvement? How can you believe that our elected representatives acting as the Lords & Ladies of the land is an improvement?

[DuncanONeil]

[QUOTE=MMI;871348]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
And of course you can tell just by looking at them, right? Something in their eyes, perhaps?

Yes, I can tell. Not from the look in their eyes, but from their actions. The first group commit crimes of a heinous nature, the second group break the law out of necessity - a law which says, they're of less value than the rest of us are.

There is, almost, never a necessity to violate a law. Such an action is a choice, every time. Doing so has consequences. However, most that think in this particular case the law should not matter are close to being on the side of anarchy. Since they wish to be able to decide which laws should be able to apply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
They have illegally crossed an international border.
That's against the law anywhere in the world.

Agreed ... but a bad law.

Why are rules to manage the borders of a given country a "bad law"? You are essentially saying that a country has no right to its sovereignty!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
And they take more than they can repay. Many, perhaps most, send funds out of the country for their families, an admirable thing perhaps, but still an additional drain on the economy. They don't pay taxes, yet they consume resources intended for citizens.

First point is false. On balance they contribute more than they take (in UK anyway - and we're more generous than you).

I would venture to suggest that the amount of money leaving the UK to go to foreign families is far less than the money that leaves UK to supplement the coffers of the Coca-Cola Company or McDonalds or General Motors, etc. So what's your point here?

We alll know the wealthy don't pay taxes while the poor do. But that aside, the people employing these illegals are also avoiding taxes and other duties while they manufacture cheap goods in illlegal sweat shops that you and I glady pay for in preference to the pricey but legitimate goods that would be the alternative. You just close your mind to the fact that goods are made illegally.

And they only consume what they can buy from the pittance they get from their Masters (the slavery metaphor is not accidental): they can't get state support - they're illegal, they'd be declaring their presence!

It may be true that those in the UK send out a small sum but such is not the case in the US. Something in excess of $17 billion in a year. On top of that it is estimated that the cost of these illegals cost the country some $100 billion annually (ABC News)

"We alll know the wealthy don't pay taxes while the poor do."
Just how do you make this statement. I am sure you understand the system in the UK but have you researched the US tax system? The bottom 50% of wage earners pay less than 4% of the income tax. The top 5% of wage earners pay a piddling 53.25% (IRS). So just what leads you to say this?

"But that aside, the people employing these illegals are also avoiding taxes and other duties while they manufacture cheap goods in illlegal sweat shops" You are making an assumption with this statement, at laeast as far as the "sweat shop". Breaking other laws aside if an employer hires an illegal they should be punished!

"(T)he pittance they get from their Masters". Again another unsupported assumption! They don't get state support!?!?! Then how do you account for illegals getting free health care, food stamps, and various other social services that I would have to be nearly at deaths door to even thing of being allowed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
Sorry, but there really isn't. There may be varying degrees of criminal behavior, but it's criminal nonetheless.

A crime is a crime, absolutely, but a tort isn't. Trespass, which is what I was comparing illegally entering a nation with, is a tort in England.

While torts are civil action in court it is not axiomatic that the underlying reason for the tort is not criminal. The underlying legal requirement of a tort is an injury. Said injury may be to "the person, such as assault, battery, imprisonment; to the property in possession; or they may be committed without force. Torts of this nature are to the absolute or relative rights of persons, or to personal property in possession or reversion, or to real property, corporeal or encorporeal, in possession or reversion: these injuries may be either by nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance." (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t032.htm)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
I see no reason for doing something like that. You just spend more money keeping them in prison, feeding them and their families, providing them medical care. Just send the whole family packing.

The reason is to make sure that no-one is denied a right to stay if they have one. But the way they are treated borders on inhumane.

The inhumane treatment at the border does not come from the US but the Coyotes that take the illegals money for a promise of transport to the US. Unless you wish to say that every single arrest ever made is inhumane treatment. Sometimes the only thing that keeps these people alive IS being arrested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

I don't understand why you see it as a problem. Illegal aliens do not, as a rule, walk inot people's houses and take over - it would attract far too much attention. They don't take my money unless I give it to them to buy something they have had to make illegally, so that makes me complicit. That's not stealing. As every American can see, it's free enterprise. And as for "stealing" your country ... don't start me off on that ...

Not only is what they are doing nearly the same as stealing but some are in fact advocating that what they are doing is perfectly legitimate as Hispanics were in the area first!

[DuncanONeil]

No, I don't ignore that. I have stated, repeatedly, that the best way to stop the flow of illegals is to crack down on those who hire them. And I mean crack down with a vengeance! Long prison times and very steep fines. That should be the first step in any attempt to control illegals.

This is interesting. It may be considered a bit in left field but the recent law from AZ that hit the news is about 70% directed at employers.
"13-2928. Unlawful stopping to hire and pick up passengers for work; unlawful application, solicitation or employment; classification; definitions
A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC."
Section 23-212. Knowingly employing unauthorized aliens; prohibition; false and frivolous complaints; violation; classification; license suspension and revocation; affirmative defense
F. On a finding of a violation of subsection A of this section:
1. For a first violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court:
(a) Shall order the employer to terminate the employment of all unauthorized aliens.
(b) Shall order the employer to be subject to a three year probationary period for the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. During the probationary period the employer shall file quarterly reports in the form provided in section 23-722.01 with the county attorney of each new employee who is hired by the employer at the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work.
(c) ... The court shall order the appropriate agencies to suspend all licenses subject to this subdivision that are held by the employer if the employer fails to file a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney within three business days after the order is issued. All licenses that are suspended under this subdivision shall remain suspended until the employer files a signed sworn affidavit with the county attorney
(d)
2. For a second violation, as described in paragraph 3 of this subsection, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work. If the employer does not hold a license specific to the business location where the unauthorized alien performed work, but a license is necessary to operate the employer's business in general, the court shall order the appropriate agencies to permanently revoke all licenses that are held by the employer at the employer's primary place of business."(State of Arizona
Senate Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session 2010 SENATE BILL 1070)

[DuncanONeil]

MMI
"I can't - I'm repeating what I have been informed by people who do know. The Independent, for example, tells us that if the illegals were able to pay taxes (and they would if they were allowed to work legally) we would be £1bn better off "
I already posted the numbers for the US that show, even if your source is correct, the data for the US is apparently different!

[DuncanONeil]

You're right about the wealthy not paying their fair share, and the country can only tolerate it because the poor pay more.

What would you consider their "fair share" 100%?

[DuncanONeil]

They are cured of their ills and given vast amounts of dole before being allowed to melt back into obscurity to continue sucking off the state and conducting their nefarious practices, are they? It must suck to be an honest tax-payer over there.

Yes! It does!!

[DuncanONeil]

A matter of opinion .. oh, you're just about to say that!





yup ... I prefer mine

I am tired of this! It is exceedingly hard to debate an issue in a situation where most of the counter argument is couched in emotional or veiled terms.

[DuncanONeil]

The distinction is citizenship and legality.
You are not arguing from a position of logic but a position of heart.
Have you seen the rules some countries have in place for immigrants to their country?
Clearly Mr. Calderon believes that Mexico’s immigration laws are far more progressive and fair than our own–so why don’t we adopt Mexico’s legislation on immigration?



This would include the following provisions per J. Michael Waller at the Center for Security Policy (Fox News link)

That immigrants are:

* in the country legally;

* have the means to sustain themselves economically;

* not destined to be burdens on society;

* of economic and social benefit to society;

* of good character and have no criminal records; and

* contributors to the general well-being of the nation

Furthermore, that:



* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

But wait! There’s more!



Naturally we would want to be selective as to who we allow into our nation, so the following provisions would apply (Articles are from Mexico’s Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population):

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico the United States”according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

* Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican American laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

* The Secretary of Governance head of DHS may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

For the sake of national security, we would have the follwing provisions:



* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

* A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

* Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Failure to obey the rules would result in the following sanctions:

* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico the US and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico the US — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

For illegal immigrants:

* “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos dollars will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico the US instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

* Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

And for Americans who provide assistance to illegal immigrants:

* A Mexican US citizen who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico the US will be fined. (Article 132)

The above statement is to me re-phrased:

As I stated earlier, every dollar spent to benefit a [human being] is a dollar unavailable to help [another human being].

I know it's a pity there aren't enough dollars to go around to help everyone who needs it, but why should we make distinctions that say one deserves it more than the other?

Based on who pays taxes? Because I've worked my share of off-the-books jobs in my lifetime, so count me out, then.

Based on where I was born? I didn't choose where I was born; neither did you. Neither did anyone; so it's not justification to say who deserves more than who.


How lucky and blessed your great-grandparents were, that their visas came in time. Does that make you better than their neighbors, whos visas did not come?

Did you family have a plan B in case the visas did not come?



Not sure where you live, but on the front door of my country we hung up a sign that says:

"Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/ The wretched refuse of your teeming shore./Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,/I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" (by Emma Lazarus, part of the poem engraved inside the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty).

Her poem does not add at the end "If you have the right documents."



How is that? Only something like 60% of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, so annexing Mexico doesn't solve the problem. Unless of course, you're only trying to keep out Mexican illegal immigrants, and illegal immigrants from Cuba or Europe or Asia are alright.

[DuncanONeil]

But we are not discussing "human rights" but "legal rights" Two completely different things!

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

If you answer "yes" - yes, all people deserve the same basic rights regardless of who they are or what they may have done - you are on one side of the line. (Hi!) If you answer "no" - no, some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other. It doesn't matter whether you define their wrongness as being black, gay, Muslim, terrorist-suspect, illegal-immigrant or whatever. It's the belief that human rights only apply to the right sort of humans that determines where you are going to stand on every important issue.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

[DuncanONeil]

You begin from a false premise! "They can't do a legitimate job,"
So I am then to presume that bussing in a restaurant is an illegal job??

By the way you are still couching you argu8ment in emotion.
Also you appear to not be reading Thorne's posts nor mine, at least completely. Illegals receive social services!

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.

Illegal imigrants do not have the same rights that you have. They can't do a legitimate job, they can't get a driver's licence, they can't get an education, they can't get medical aid or food stamps, because, if they apply for them, they get noticed, rounded up, processed through a gaol and deported to their homeland ... where they might starve, or be tortured or killed by their government.

Everything they do, they do illegally. If American air is for the esclusive use of US taxpayers and their dependants, then these immigrants would break the law by breathing. But they have to breathe - they have no choice.

Many of them have little or no choice when they leave their country, so why should it matter to them that they step beyond some badly policed fences marking the US border? What harm do they do? You brand them as "criminals": men, women, children alike just because their presence offends you. How many were criminals in their home nations.

The US constitution might consider aliens to be unworthy, but it wsas itself drafted by people committing a much more serious criminal act ... and you idolise them.

[DuncanONeil]

Number of debaters are not what make it "fair". It is debating from a common set of definitions.
Oh, and thanks for missing me. Or did I just come in late?

I'm me, that's who I am A better question is who are you? Your profile is all blank...

And I'm so glad to have a debater on my side; I feel a little bad for Thorne, he needs another person on his side to make this fair.