Am I Supposed To Feel Sorry?

[Freedan]

Ratty Randnums wrote:

So my stance is basically this, instead of zealously enforcing a law that would be harmful for us as a country, how about we reconsider and reform our immigration system?

Why can't both be done? Deal with illegal immigration and make it easier to become legal.

Also, your scenario:

Quote:

And when a choice is like "break the law or you and your loved ones starve" it's not really a choice.

... seems pretty extreme. Yes, I imagine there is the occasional person or family in a bad way, but the sheer number of illegals that crosses the border makes them a drop in a very large bucket. And if action were never taken based on every possible hypothetical, nothing would ever be done.

People often say that illegals are only doing the crappy jobs that citizens don't want to do. That's a thin rationalization. Unemployment is a problem just about everywhere; there will always be someone that needs a job. Given the choice between "work a crappy job for a little money" and "work no job and have no money", I doubt a citizen will dismiss it as a job only fit for illegals.

It may sound heartless, but a country should be looking out for the interests of its own people before everyone else's. If it comes down to a citizen that needs a job, or an illegal that needs a job, the citizen wins. Hell, if I'm not mistaken, it's illegal to hire an illegal immigrant (knowingly) anyway. Seriously increase the punishment for doing so, and there's no incentive to hire them over citizens.

A big part of the issue you're taking with this law seems to be that it's discriminatory:

Quote:

Racism has been shoved into the argument by the conservatives who like in Arizona have or are trying to basically write racial profiling into law, and change the citizenship laws to prevent the racial and cultural make-up of the country from shifting as more immigrants flow it.

You then go on to say:

Quote:

After all laws are supposed to come from the people. Even indirectly in a democratic republic such as this.

Leaving the creation of laws up to the people does not make them right, or any less discriminatory. Prop 8 was up to the people, and it's constitutionality is being called in to question.

You also mention profiling:

Quote:

It impacts people who are here legally who will be subjected to this profiling.

Yes, profiling is a likely, and unfortunate, side effect. But if someone is in the country legally, they have nothing to be worried about.

Unfortunate as it is, profiling is a reality because circumstances have simply made it that way. Arabs are viewed more warily on account of many of them blowing stuff up. So, they're watched more carefully at the airport. I'm sorry it turned out that way, but some people are responsible for ruining that for their race, not the lawmakers.


tl;dr: Yes, the law isn't perfect, but people should not be in the country illegally. Do something about the existing illegals, then reform immigration.

[Jason Tandro]

@Ratty: I repeat my question. What is unjust about punishing people who break the law?

[inferiare]

I gotta agree with Freedan here: 14 million American citizens without jobs here. Any job to feed their family will do. But wait; that job is taken by someone who makes wages even China would be jealous of! Honestly, some of those who come here illegally talk about nothing but how great their home country is and how it's better than America. If that's the case, why are they here? Why aren't they in their country of origin trying to make it better?

And yes, it's illegal to knowingly hire someone who is here illegally. Doesn't stop the employers though.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Quote:

Jason Tandro wrote: @Ratty: Illegal is illegal. These people are breaking the law. That's pretty simple. I agree that the motivations and means are much more complex and that most of these people mean no harm to our country but are just trying to survive, but what are you suggesting we do? Open our borders completely? Yeah, that will work. Reform immigration? A good idea, but what EXACTLY needs to be reformed? You say it's "retarded". What is? The fact is, we do not need to punish these people, we just need to deport them. End of story. Blindly following the creedo that "Illegal is illegal" is valuing law over justice. Which I don't do, the system isn't perfect and I'm not advocating that it should be abandoned, but if you see a law that you don't believe is right, don't just blindly allow it but protest it.

That's right along the lines with people trying to legalize marijuana, or capital punishment. Jason said quite aptly "We can't make every man a law unto himself," and agree with that creedo.

I agree law and justice and two absolutely different things. Anytime they give immunity, and witness protection, to a admitted killer is valuing law over justice. But that's a different debate entirely.

And I agree there are laws that should be changed. I just don't think this law is that big of a deal- once again, any law should only worry a person if they intend to break it. How people can overcomplicate that is beyond me.

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: Quote: When you need to support someone you love and have to make a decision that breaks a law to do so, then you come back to me and talk about how laws are "there for a reason" and people who break them "deserve to be punished". Trying to negate someone's argument with this childish rhetoric seldom works. It's a weak and tired move, and I expected better from you. I may not agree with your opinion, but I would never disrespect you. I expect the same common ground back. Asking someone to think about the implications of their absolutest philosophy is not disrespecting them.

I don't see any question in your rheotorical statement. Instead, I see someone calling someone out for being an "absolutest," because they made a comment that degraded someone elses opinion with direspect is- dare I say- hypocritical.

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: The problem is, not only are they breaking the law, the are breaking other laws as well. They live here and don't pay taxes. If they get caught, what happens? They get deported. If I didn't pay taxes? I'd have to pay it all back, and/or end up in jail. Same with what Raini said... some sneak in here and commit crimes. If we let them here, we're also letting in more drugs, more gang violence- the list goes on and on. Let me give an unemotional argument: To make us pay taxes and punish us for not paying them with jail, while these people who are here illegally in the first place can do it and get the same punishment that they would receive for the crime they were already committing is insane. Where is your no taxation without representation there? It's right at the part where instead of deportation and allowing profiling we fix immigration and nationalization process to make coming to the country to be a worker legally easier.

The laws are tough and hard because the men who made them knew we would open ourselves up to a shitstorm if they weren't. Our country has had issues with overcrowding- not to say some people deserve jobs more than others- but by making the worker laws easier would completely decimate the point you had been making all along about cheap labor- they wouldn't get any work at all if they were given the same rights. How often are the workers hired because they are cheaper?

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: If we as legal citizens of this country have to be held to a certain standard, why aren't they? I want to hold them to the same standard, never said I didn't. It's the mentality that the only solution is a massive deportation that says they should be treated with something other than human dignity and responsibility. A way of thinking that again would devastate American industry with the sudden loss of cheap labor in jobs US americans wouldn't do for nearly as low a price/without benefits if at all.

Look back to history here. We could lose this cheap labor and survive. I don't honestly believe it would actually effect anything longterm. Take the end of slavery for instance. I know that they weren't seen as first class citizens even after Slavery had been abolished, but that was cheap/free labor which was lost, but the country survived and, dare I say- thrived. We can find a way out of anything issue as a country- we always have.

Now, don't think I'm trying to put words into your mouth, but I am slightly confused; are you defending the need to have Mexicans here for cheap labor? Because I think that's actually more degrading than deporting them and sending them back to their own country to exploit them that way. I always have.

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: And now back to that quote: your statement there is extremely vague, and is completely open to interpretation. On the same account, if I were to walk into a bank tomorrow, and rob it at gunpoint, end up killing a person, I should be punished, right? Not all laws are created equal, not all laws are just. Killing someone and stealing resources is different that illegal entry into a country.

Agreed. But:

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: What if I had to rob the bank to save someone I loves life. Does that make it better? Do I deserve a lesser punishment or none at all because of such righteous indignation? I believe it would be a sad comment on our society if we let things get bad enough for you to have to do that, but with the way health insurance works I wouldn't be surprised.

Society was there at one point- during the Depression. People had to steal, people had to kill, to help their families survive. The law is the law, and debating it over a small internet forum isn't exactly helping to change it, in my opinion.

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: A better man than me once said "The law is not always absolutely perfect, but nevertheless, the law is absolute." An accuracte reflection of reality is this: We have laws in place for a reason. If you break them, there should be an equal and fair punishment for said crime. Again, not all laws are right or adventagious to a population, look at prohibition.

They changed it to tax the shit out of it. I think cigarettes should be banned, same with alcohol, because of the known effects to the body. But doing that has a reverse effect on the populations mind: it's like telling a kid he can't play a video game or see a movie because it's too adult. At the end of the day, they will find a way if they are adventageous enough. That doesn't mean it's ever going to happen- the government makes too much money off those taxes.

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: I'd have no problem if they changed the law entirely, but they haven't. There are legal avenues to get citizenship. If people forgo those, I could care less. If they're caught and deported, it was there choice to break the law. Again, I don't think you're quiet understanding what a clusterfuck these "legal avenus" you're talking about are. And when a choice is like "break the law or you and your loved ones starve" it's not really a choice.

How often have you heard about "anchor babies" and such? It's people giving birth to children, people here illegally, to gain an "anchor" to stay in the country. Maybe it's just my own mentality, but you shouldn't have a wife, or children, if you have no means or very little means to take care of them. You shouldn't have to put people into that position if you had made a better foresight. I think it's, pardon my french, fucked up to have a child simply to stay in a country.

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: Quote: So don't underhandedly insult me and insinuate I am the one trying to put race into the mix, it's already clearly a part of the issue for anyone who doesn't choose to blind themselves or pretend not to see it. I won't pretend to know what goes on inside your head. Likewise, I would ask you not to do the same to me. It's almost as insulting as the first statement I have quoted. Again not intended as an insult, though your use of "sir" along with the rest of your comment was.

I was merely stating my opinion, and no insult was meant. I do honestly believe there are people who argue for arguements sake. I just feel if a person is truly passionate about an issue, they would be out there making a difference somehow. It's just like my mindset about this particular law: if the comment has nothing to do with you, and you actually do care for the issue, then why would you feel insulted?

BTW, that comment was directed towards this:

Quote:

Meanwhile conservatives are attempting to repeal the 14th amendment, which was established so that blacks could be citizens, so they can say if a baby is born to Mexican parents in the US it isn't an American citizen. If you can't see the racist underpinnings in this action I can't help you.

Which ties back to my point earlier about anchor babies. Maybe I have a certain moral standard about this, but how can you get pregnant and have a kid just to stay in the country? And I know some of them don't, and have the children because they really want children, but there are some out there that have done that.

So, if you want to take this comment out of context:

Quote:

Some people want to make it an issue of race, as you are. Not everyone is a racist, sir. Some people just don't like others breaking the law and getting away with it.

I can't help you.

Now, I agree the law shouldn't be repealed. But it's kind of messed up people are using a loophole in the law to stay in the country.

Quote:

SoulBlazerFan wrote: You hit the nail on the head. People can argue it's racial profiling. Others would argue it's for the American safety... people still go on and on about how the Patriot Act infringes on our rights. Now, please, take a minute and think about this question: Does this law infringe on American rights? We could say it profiles anybody suspected of being here illegally- that includes citizens who are already American. Who should be worried about this law? Only the people it will affect- the people who have broken the law in the first place! Isn't that what laws are supposed to be for? It impacts people who are here legally who will be subjected to this profiling. It basically singles out a certain ethnic group and encourages the authorities to offically think of them in a certain way.

Once again, a minor inconvience to the people who are here legally. The other people who should be worried about the law are the ones the law was intended for in the first place.

Quote:

The fighting we've been doing in the middle east hasn't "pinned down" the terrorists so they can't come over here first of all. For every time we blow up a building or kills someone's family like SBF just described, we're only making many more people willing to do anything they can to harm us as a country.

Where did I say anything about killing someone's family or blowing up buildings? For someone who is so touchy about having words put into their mouths, you certainly are a stickler for doing it yourself...

Quote:

My case is to look at the problem realistically. Is national security at risk? Yes, is opening the door for racial profiling in our police departments a good idea? No. Will blindly deporting all the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide be a good idea? No, it will harm out country and Mexico as well. So my stance is basically this, instead of zealously enforcing a law that would be harmful for us as a country, how about we reconsider and reform our immigration system?

Absolutely national security is at risk. And I'm totally against racial profiling as well. But, I believe the country wouldn't be effected by the loss of the cheap labor. I think there would be some problems at first- same as the ending of slavery- but we are a versitile country, and we would come out of it. We'll find another source, we always do.

Lastly, I agree about a reform would be the best option, but I haven't heard any talk of it at at capital hill. If they did reform, what would have to be changed? Equal pay? What? Because if you change the laws to make working here easier, obviously OSHA and whatever would be involved. The payrates would have to increase to a fair and legal amount. These illegal aliens would lose jobs because of the law- there are alot of racist contractors out there who hire the illegals simply because they can pay them nothing, and given the choice, would rather pay someone else than the immigrants. You would end up still having people working illegally- I doubt changing the law would actually change anything anyway.

Just like with prohibition, people drank before, they drank during (arguably moreso), and they continued to drink afterwards. You can change the laws, but without a real change, everything will just be more of the same.

@Freedan You make several very valid points.

Quote:

It may sound heartless, but a country should be looking out for the interests of its own people before everyone else's. If it comes down to a citizen that needs a job, or an illegal that needs a job, the citizen wins. Hell, if I'm not mistaken, it's illegal to hire an illegal immigrant (knowingly) anyway. Seriously increase the punishment for doing so, and there's no incentive to hire them over citizens.

It is in fact illegal, because you aren't paying income taxes, as well as, employing an illegal worker on top of that. The government loses out on money- so of course they'd be pissed about that.

Quote:

Yes, profiling is a likely, and unfortunate, side effect. But if someone is in the country legally, they have nothing to be worried about.

That's the same point I've been trying to make. Amen, good sir.[/quote]

[Jason Tandro]

The attempt to repeal the 14th ammendment is carrying the concept a little far. I have a rule of thumb: If you're not an adult you can't be expected to have an understanding of the law.

Basically if you're 17 or younger it is your parents responsibility to uphold the law, not yours. I don't like the idea of kids being punished for the illegal actions of their parents. So I say let the anchor babies stay. Sure it may seem like exploitation on the parents part, but as long as the kid grows up to be a respectable member of society then I've got no problem.

Now to counter the argument from Ratty, which I can hear echoing in my mind. Ratty would likely say "why aren't you willing to give the same chance to adults?"

Simple. They are trying to enter our country by knowingly breaking our laws. They are disrespecting the laws of our land simply by entering it and it is fair to assume that they would treat all other laws with the same disdain.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

The attempt to repeal the 14th ammendment is carrying the concept a little far. I have a rule of thumb: If you're not an adult you can't be expected to have an understanding of the law. Basically if you're 17 or younger it is your parents responsibility to uphold the law, not yours. I don't like the idea of kids being punished for the illegal actions of their parents. So I say let the anchor babies stay. Sure it may seem like exploitation on the parents part, but as long as the kid grows up to be a respectable member of society then I've got no problem. Now to counter the argument from Ratty, which I can hear echoing in my mind. Ratty would likely say "why aren't you willing to give the same chance to adults?" Simple. They are trying to enter our country by knowingly breaking our laws. They are disrespecting the laws of our land simply by entering it and it is fair to assume that they would treat all other laws with the same disdain.

I believe they would have to grandfather anyone who is already born a legal US citizen... I doubt they can just say "Oh your parents weren't from here to begin with, you gotta go." They will probably stick around... but given the choice, the parents would more than likely either take them with them or put them into the legal system. (Now that one is an entirely different debate for another day)