| Author |
Message |
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
 Mon May 01, 2006 10:28 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Quote: | | Ah I see. So since the Native Americans were not unified and had no way of repelling the foreigners, it was all fair game. Its bad enough we stole the land, but did we have to commit genocide as well? |
O'Reilly got this VERY SAME argument tonight as well. My point was not to say that what the colonists did was right, but that there was no country here with immigration laws. Now there is, and those laws are supposed to be explicitly enforced, but apparently it's okay to ignore them and not enforce them. |
That dont' make it anyless wrong, just because we didn't define the area as a "country" then. It was Still thier homes, and now, as a thank you, we give them crappy land for a crappy reservation. How Nice of us /Sarcasam 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 10:29 pm |
|
Again, I'm not excusing what we did to them. What we did was wrong and a dark time in our history, but it just wasn't the same back then. Now there is a sovereign state governing this land, a sovereign state with well-set-out laws and boundaries, and we need to follow them.
Just because we didn't know of and follow the laws of Native Americans centuries ago doesn't mean that we shouldn't enforce our laws now, or that they're here illegally.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 10:35 pm |
|
Oh, and FYI? Believe me, I know all about migration and the strifes of illegal immigrants prior to their migration to the US. We learned all about migration in Human Geo, and I was subjected to a video following a Mexican man who illegally travels to and fro as part of the curriculum. Plus I know all about their conditions to know that I would do the exact same thing were I in their posiiton, but that doesn't make it any more right. Nothing makes it any more right that they're breaking our laws to get here.
I mean, their migration reasons may be good, but they're not reason enough to break our laws. But again, I want to help them as well, so don't think I'm anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican.
Oh, and yeah. My Human Geo textbook even has the words "undocumented immigrants" as the term. You can guess what I did to the definition in the glossary 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 10:41 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | See, while I would agree that many do love our country, I disagree with you due to the fact that many don't give a damn about what they think of our country. They know it's better than where they live now or lived before and will give them more opportunities, so they jump to come here. But does that mean that they love the country? No, it just means that they're coming to make a better life for themselves--a worthy goal, but it doesn't mean that they love the country, especially when you have people going around claiming they want to be acculturated into America and yet go around singing the National Anthem in Spanish.
You're contradicting yourself over and over and over. They want to come here to better themselves, but they don't love the country. If they wanted to better themselves, why not sneak in Canada? Why choose to stay here of all places? They obviously go through a lot of stuff to get to America. If they don't want to be HERE, why not sneak off to another nation? Guess why?
Now, mind you, I enjoyed hearing the National Anthem sung in Spanish, as I've enjoyed the language all my life and find it fascinating, but at a rally, where you're trying to say that you want to be an American, you're singing the National Anthem in Spanish? Come on. That's disrespectful in my book.
Disrespectful? Anyone care to say HOW? I thought emulation was the highest flattery. They are simply singing the nationa anthem in their own language. I thought this was the land of millions of skin colors, relgions, languages, etc. Surely, it doesn't all have to be expressed through white, athiest, English only does it?
Interesting. In my mind, skipping school for a day because a whole organization of people is telling you to, or encouraging you to, is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a day, a week, a month, or a year. I don't care. It just shows me how little they care about education.
Again, you're missing the point and I'm tired of saying it over and over. This has nothing to do with caring about education. You and others who think like that are simply twisting it to find faults with this boycott.
Actually, if you pay closer attention to what I've been saying, I don't think of this issue in a black and white context 
But you CLEARLY said that it was plain and simple...
No, you're right that it's not an example of most of them hating America, but it is an example of the PR image many of them care about emitting--and that's it.
Many of them? Obviously not many, if this isn't more known. It sounds like people saw like three of them do it and then shouted that all of them do it to....thats right....find fault with this cause.
Because they want a better life, not because they love the country. They know it's better, but they don't necessarily love it. I don't want to say that they're moving here for their own selfish desires, because they're NOT, but in a sense they are in terms of them coming to this country illegally for better opportunities for themselves, yet not to make America better or because they love this country, but because they want it better for themselves. And I don't blame them for that. This is a great country. (And let me clarify once again that I don't believe they're selfish.)
I already talked about this above.
Hey, I'm in O'Reilly's boat. Did you read where he said, �You see, I don�t have anything against anyone trying to do better for his family�If I were a poor Mexican I�d be coming here too. But I wouldn�t be demanding any rights, and I wouldn�t be here out carrying a Mexican flag, even if I was Mexican, because that�s an insult to what the country stands for, but we�re not getting any good leadership from the Republican president on this issue, are we?�
They only demanded rights because you all put them in the spot light and want to deport them.
I know I would do the same thing, in terms of coming here illegally, but I wouldn't do that. But does the fact that they're coming here illegally for a better life (through voluntary migration, mind you) mean that it's okay? No.
You wouldn't do that? How would you know what you would or wouldn't do if you were suddenly thrusted into another situation like that?
O'Reilly got this VERY SAME argument tonight as well. My point was not to say that what the colonists did was right, but that there was no country here with immigration laws. Now there is, and those laws are supposed to be explicitly enforced, but apparently it's okay to ignore them and not enforce them.
You're still trying to write it off. What was done to them was wrong, no arguments. Unless of course, you APPROVE of genocide.
Tell you what? Tomorrow I'm gonna go up to the Safeway up the street and steal a candy bar. When they catch me--and they WILL catch me--I'll tell them not to do anything about it. I'll say that an Hispanic friend of mine told me that it's alright for one group of people to break the law but it's not right for everybody else to. Guess what kind of reaction I'll get for that?
That's right. It'll be a double standard.
What? What kind of comparison is that? I would support you being dragged to jail if you did that. You're trying to compare you're criminal activity, which you did over a candy bar, with people doing "criminal" acts to gain a better life. Not a very good scale of comparison at all...
Oh, and I'll also say that it's clearly alright for me to break the law, because the US government doesn't care about 24 million illegal immigrants for breaking the law. Isn't it alright for me to break the law now? What kind of a message does that send to us kids?
Again, TERRIBLE comparison.
So it's alright for illegal aliens illegal aliens to want--to demand--something from our government which our government doesn't have an obligation to provide? Are you telling me that?
Like I said, they weren't demanding anything before all of this mess. BTW? They aren't protesting to get citizenship. They are protesting deportation.
Maybe not, but my point is that overtime they could. Do not forget the wide-spread amount of immigrants that want to come here and will take the time and do menial jobs just as well.
Menial jobs? The same ones the Mexicans do now? I doubt it. Not for the same hours and pay.
Huh? What? The American government wants to deport them all? Where are you getting your news from--MediaMatters.org? Even CNN knows that that's not what they want. NO ONE is saying we should deport them all (well, with the exception of Savage). Not even JD Hayworth of Arizona or Tom Tancredo of Colorado, my favorite politician, believe that. So, yeah. Moot point which doesn't make sense.
What are you talking about? What do you think they are protesting? The government is trying to deport the illegal aliens or at least, put them in prison. What exactly do you all of this is about?
What this was a result of, in the beginning, was a bill for strict law enforcement, in terms of illegal immigration, within the House. It called for a shutdown of the border and many other things, some of which I disagreed with. But it was NOT a deportation bill. Besides, this bill wasn't going to pass in the Senate anyways. The Senate never passes good legislation, so why would they pass slightly flawed legislation?
No, it did not JUST call for a shut down of the Border. It was a deportation bill. Did you not read what it called for? For those who stayed a certain amount of years, they could gain citizenship. The rest? Deporation or prison.
Next, NO ONE is "terrorizing illegals." To coin a phrase from Princess Leia, "I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain."
Seriously, though. If trying to enforce the law is terrorizing people, then I'm Fidel Castro, which means I'm your literal best buddy.
I love how it's only they're fault, Founder. I love how it's merely the government's fault for actually trying to do something that they're actually supposed to do. I love how the illegals aren't at fault at all, and how these protests are only happening because the House tried to enforce the laws.  , what a thought!
That's what they tried to do, Andy. They tried to secure the border, which was the main part of the bill, and people became up in arms about it. Then the Left started distorting everything and it became this huge mess.
It's not an issue the Democrats and Republicans should have left alone. It's an issue that should have been dealt with long ago. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with now. |
First of all, you're twisting my words. I am not saying that it is only the government's fault. But its hard to have a discussion here on views when people are saying things about rounding them up, becoming racists, etc. I also never said the illegals weren't a fault. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. By the way? The Bill was NOT just about securing the border. That is a lie. It was about dealing with the illegals in this country. There would not be an uproar if it was about the border. That was actually a very MINOR part of the Bill. This is about what is going to be done to the illegals, not the border.
To clarfiy my views, since they seem to be distorted for some people. I most certainly think the illegals need to be penalized for what they did. Fined, taxed, etc. What ever. They should not be rewarded, but deporting them is TOO much. Imprisoning them maybe too much too.
I also would like to point out that link I posted earlier. Them not working had a SIGNIFICANT affect on American economics. THAT is the point they were trying to prove. You all go through with this, YOU all will be hurting America. Not them.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 10:57 pm |
|
I know some of yall said that they wouldn't be fired, but just from personal experience, I know that quite a few did. Three of the cooks at our work didn't come in, and didn't find someone to work for them, so they no longer have jobs. Also, my friends mom owns a business, and I know that she alot of the Mexicans she had working for her didn't come in, and therefore they no longer have jobs with her. I think that this is fair. You don't come to work because you want to protest, then that's fine, but don't expect your employer to keep you on the payrole.
The General Manager, and both of the assistant managers at my work are all Mexican, by the way.
Last edited by Puck on Mon May 01, 2006 11:05 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 10:59 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | I know some of yall said that they wouldn't be fired, but just from personal experience, I know that quite a few did. Three of the cooks at our work didn't come in, and didn't find someone to work for them, so they no longer have jobs. Also, my friends mom owns a business, and I know that she alot of the Mexicans she had working for her didn't come in, and therefore they no longer have jobs with her. I think that this is fair. You don't come to work because you want to protest, then that's fine, but don't expect your employer to keep you on the payrole. |
Indeed. Very fair. Its one of the personal sacrifices that needs to be made.
I'd also like to ask a question for everyone. What would you prefer? Them PEACEFULLY protesting by boycotting or VIOLENTLY protesting through riots?
Please don't say you would prefer marches. Cause we've seen how marches have helped Democrats with ousting Bush...
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 11:26 pm |
|
I would personally like for Congress to have the sense to pass a bill that is fair, and compassionate to immigrants while also maintaining American security...but that is clearly much too idealistic and incredibly unrealistic. So naturally, my next preference would be peaceful protest. I just wish they could find a way to do so so that it improved their public image, instead of harming it (which I believe this protest did).
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 11:31 pm |
|
My time is limited, so I shall respond only to the point that I have enough time to discuss, namely the one relevant to a class I am taking:
| Quote: | | You're contradicting yourself over and over and over. They want to come here to better themselves, but they don't love the country. If they wanted to better themselves, why not sneak in Canada? Why choose to stay here of all places? They obviously go through a lot of stuff to get to America. If they don't want to be HERE, why not sneak off to another nation? Guess why? |
Why not go to Canada? The reasons are two simple geographic concepts. Namely, the Gravity Model and Distance Decay. Just wrote an essay on Distance Decay on my AP Exam, as a matter of fact.
In short, the Gravity Model states the following:
1. Migrants move to a closer place due to the shorter distance
2. Migrants move to where there are masses of people and many opportunities.
In short, Distance Decay involves the concept that as the distance of a phenomenon is from its origin increases, its importance diminishes and will eventually disappear.
Now, how does this apply to Mexico, you ask? Well, I could've written about this on the essay, but I chose to discuss North Africans migrating to Western Europe instead, with Mexico discussing Chain Migration, another concept that I find particularly relevant to this discussion.
The gravity model's application here is simple in the sense that the Mexican migrants will move to a closer place because it is a shorter distance. Just as well, they will move to where there are masses of people and many opportunities in that closer location. There are masses of Mexicans within the US, and they are therefore drawn closer to those people than a region with fewer people of that group present. Also, in the closer distance there are many opportunities that present themself. Why go to a place far away when you can just go to a place where there is more likelihood of finding people of your own kind with many opportunities, giving a rise to the concept of chain migration.
That is to say, por ejemplo: Soy Juan, y soy de Mexico. (for example, my name is Juan, and I'm from Mexico.) Mi amigo Hernandez dijome, cuando el volvio a mi cuidad despues de estar? en los Estados Unidos, que muchos Mexicanos son en un �rea de California. (My friend Hernandez told me, when he returned to my city after being in the United States, that many Mexicans are in an area of California.) "Ven conmigo a California para oportunidades mas buenas que aqui, donde mas Mexicanos vivir," el dijo. ("Come with me to California for better opportunities than here, where more Mexicans live," he said.)
((Due to lack of time, I shall complete this tale in English only.))
And so I, Juan, decided to join my friend in Mexico during his next seasonal trip to the city he talked about. We eventually decided to send for our families and stay with the community.
This is the concept of chain migration, basically one group of people pioneering to a region and more people following in suit, which, in effect, results in more and more people of the same ethnic group migrating to that location, like a chain, you understand?
So there's your answer to that aspect, in terms of both chain migration and the gravity model. They'll come to a place that's closer to them with a lot of opportunities and people of the same ethnic background nearby.
Now, the concept of distance decay basically discusses how the greater the distance a cultural identity is from its origin, the more its importance diminishes, eventually causing it to disappear. In the context of this question, the farther a Mexican travels the more his cultural identity disappears, and the lesser the importance of that cultural identity. Would a Mexican migrant want to move to a location where his cultural identity is absent? No.
Now, there are some Mexicans, for sure, that don't follow those rules, but that tends to be the case, and that's the primary reason why it's the US they come to and not Mexico. Make sense?
Oh, and another concept is intervening opportunities. These are opportunities that present themselves during migration which causes a person to remain in that location rather than continue to move to another location. If someone's on the way to Canada they're bound to find something along the way, and that's where they'd go.
I love when classes I take actually have relevance to an issue
I've already covered the Canada portion of that article, so let me cover the rest.
I'll guess another reason why they come to us aside form the gravity model, chain migration, and distance decay, which is why they don't move to a southern state (not US state; I mean the actual definition for state, as in a country).
It's because they'll get little to no better a life in other countries down south of their border. The rest of Latin America is made up primarily of LDCs (less developed countries) and countries in the periphery (core-periphery model, basically stating that wealth will extend from a certaineconomic core to certain semi-peripheral areas to benefit the core while leaving the periphery, consisting of poorer countries, behind). Mexico and Brazil are in the Semi-Periphery, but no other Latin American countries are in the Semi-Periphery, while the US (and Canada) are in the economic core.
Why would a Mexican immigrant move to Brazil when it's in a similar condition, economically, to Mexico when it can move to the United States, a country (a) within the economic core, (b) that is an MDC (more developed country), and (c) is in Stage 3 of the Demographic Transition (although it would be in Stage 4, save for the wide-spread immigration to our country).
Just as well, despite the system's weaknesses, America still has the best health coverage, technology wise, you can find throughout the world, period. We're at the highest stage of medical technology possible up to this point. We also have birthright citizenship, guaranteeing the citizenship of illegals who give bith while in America.
Not to mention it's required by federal law that all children within US borders recieve education and other benefits, and it is not difficult for illegals to abuse our welfare system as well as any American citizen.
Now, obviously most don't abuse the welfare system or come to abuse America, but they do come for the advantages of it, and because of the several geographic concepts I discussed above.
What does this mean? Does this mean that they love America? It clearly does not. Given, many do love America. Many are grateful that we're here and like us for that very fact. But they're reason for coming here is not because of that. It is because, once again, of these several concepts:
1. The Gravity Model
2. The concept of Distance Decay
3. Chain Migration
4. The US is in Stage 4 of the DTM (I can explain that later if necessary)
5. The US is in the economic core while Mexico is in the semi-periphery, as is Brazil, and its bordering countries to the South are in the periphery.
6. The US is an MDC.
7. The US offers many Intervening Opportunities.
8. The Mexican government is corrupt, human smuggling is rampent, and the drug cartels run the show down there.
9. The economy, simply put, is in shambles in Mexico, and the only way to get further is to go to the US, where there are many more economic opportunities which, again, doesn't mean that they love the US.
10. We have SOOO many benefits that our government provides for them that make it worth they're while, it's not even funny.
All in all, there are MANY key factors in play here with regards to why Mexican emmigrants choose the US to migrate to, and the top three are some of the chief reasons why they would go to the US while many of the other reasons are why they would move, period.
Good enough for you? Did you learn something about Human Geography in the process? I mean, I just pretty much summed up a quarter of a chapter for you in this single post.
Come on, now. You have to give me at least some credit for that. That was long and well-thought-out. Even on my AP test I would get some define points for defining those terms correctly.
(Not to mention I spent a LOT more time on that than I anticipated, lol.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 11:40 pm |
|
You typed all of that when you could have just said American is closer. The reason I don't buy that is the terrible conditions they go through to get to America. Passing through America to get to Canada would be a breeze....
| Puck wrote: | | I would personally like for Congress to have the sense to pass a bill that is fair, and compassionate to immigrants while also maintaining American security...but that is clearly much too idealistic and incredibly unrealistic. |
I couldn't agree with you more.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 11:44 pm |
|
Okay then. Just disregard everything I say, fine. There's a lot to it, and we studied this in-depth. I doubt you read the entire post clearly anyways, so why did I even bother trying? I explained to you reasons that are exactly why it is so, but because you don't agree with them you just entirely disregard it.
Well, okay, fine. You didn't study human geography anyway, so I can't blaim you for disregarding it entirely. I have studied this course since August and understand it quite well and know how it really does model the Earth and how the things I said there are accurate and correct, and not just geographically-speaking. We even, as I said before, focussed a great deal on Mexico as well, so, um...yeah. I think I know quite a bit about migration, both Mexican and otherwise, thank you very much.
Besides, you either didn't read the whole thing or didn't realize that there was a LOT more there than just the gravity model.
But fine. Disregard my logical arguments in entirely, period, everything I said there. Fine. Whatever.
And yes, I agree with you as well, Kevin.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 11:51 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Okay then. Just disregard everything I say, fine. There's a lot to it, and we studied this in-depth. I doubt you read the entire post clearly anyways, so why did I even bother trying? I explained to you reasons that are exactly why it is so, but because you don't agree with them you just entirely disregard it.
Well, okay, fine. You didn't study human geography anyway, so I can't blaim you for disregarding it entirely. I have studied this course since August and understand it quite well and know how it really does model the Earth and how the things I said there are accurate and correct, and not just geographically-speaking. We even, as I said before, focussed a great deal on Mexico as well, so, um...yeah. I think I know quite a bit about migration, both Mexican and otherwise, thank you very much.
But fine. Disregard my logical arguments in entirely, period, everything I said there. Fine. Whatever.
And yes, I agree with you as well, Kevin. |
Where did I disregard it? Just because I didn't rush to agree with that long winded paragraph, does not mean I'm disregarding anything. While it may make more sense for them to go to the US over Canada or a South American nation, that doesn't mean its impossible that they would do otherwise. If they truly hated America. They wouldn't come here. Again, you're all simply trying to find ways to hate their cause. This is a rather weak one. The fact is, these immigrants DO like this country. Whether it be for the benifits, laws, jobs, whatever. They do love it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon May 01, 2006 11:58 pm |
|
Hey, Andy. Tell me where I said they (generalizing all Mexican immigrants) hate America. Please, do find it for me, because all I remember arguing is that they don't love America. I never said ANYTHING about them hating it, and if I did it was with regards to a small group of people.
And I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, nor am I saying that there isn't the possiblity that they might go to Canada. But all those things I listed show good, solid reasons why they wouldn't go there, and you never even said a danged word about it being plausible. You disregarded it in entirety, passing it off as me simply saying the US is closer, so that's why they'll go here.
No, there was a lot more there. You have the gravity model, distance decay, chain migration, intervening opportunities, etc. etc. which are all concepts that have been proven time and time again.
I gave you a LONG argument and a LONG list of reasons why they would go to the US over all other countries and what did you do? You passed it off in entirety. And don't tell me you didn't, because it's dang well clear that you did.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 12:10 am |
|
Oh, and by the way, Andy? Here is the reason I am opposed to the cause of illegal immigrants, at least, I stress again, while the border is not secure: They are here illegally!!! That's it! They broke our laws to get here! Broke our laws Stop mischaracterizing my opinions, for cripe's sake!
I do NOT hate their cause. I do not believe that they hate or even dislike America. I happen to believe that they are grateful for the rewords that we give them.
I understand their strifes and would do the same thing were I in their position. But that doesn't change the fact that the key word here is illegal. The broke our laws to get here, being incredibly unfair to those who wait as much as 20 years to come here legally! It's just not fair to those people at all.
Secure the border, then legalize them and make the system easier or whatever the heck you want. I am FOR that, for the last time. I am for a guest worker program!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 12:27 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Hey, Andy. Tell me where I said they (generalizing all Mexican immigrants) hate America. Please, do find it for me, because all I remember arguing is that they don't love America. I never said ANYTHING about them hating it, and if I did it was with regards to a small group of people.
And I'm not saying that you have to agree with me, nor am I saying that there isn't the possiblity that they might go to Canada. But all those things I listed show good, solid reasons why they wouldn't go there, and you never even said a danged word about it being plausible. You disregarded it in entirety, passing it off as me simply saying the US is closer, so that's why they'll go here.
No, there was a lot more there. You have the gravity model, distance decay, chain migration, intervening opportunities, etc. etc. which are all concepts that have been proven time and time again.
I gave you a LONG argument and a LONG list of reasons why they would go to the US over all other countries and what did you do? You passed it off in entirety. And don't tell me you didn't, because it's dang well clear that you did. |
Well if they don't love, like, or hate America, then what do they feel towards it?
Just because I did not give an equally long geographical essay, does not mean I disregarded what you said. I understand it is more than the US is closer. You posted that to show WHY they come here. I'm saying that those "facts", charts, statistics can never know what is in the mind of a Human being. No matter what you say, you have yet to prove how these people feel towards America.
Not to mention, you act like them coming here is this hardcore evil thing. If they came here and did NO work. Then I would agree that they are simply mooching off the system. They do A LOT of hard work. I'm not saying, they do more than any other American, but they do make a huge bulk of the workforce. When they "criminally" enter their way into America, they make up for it for all the work they do. I too provided proof. Proof that their boycott showed America something. That without them, the economy would hurt. That was just ONE day. If they were all gone, it would be really bad. For a while at least. I'm sure we would recover, in time though. You keep saying this boycott was bad, but any other alternative would be WORSE. Would you prefer rioting? What? So then you could go on a tangent on how bad these people are acting. They acted VERY civilized and fair. A march around the block won't change things. It hasn't yet for the Democrats. They march for the end of the war. They march to get rid of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc. None of it changed a damn thing. This boycott was not just a form of protest, but it was also a way to show America what they were about to lose if they went through with this. They proved their point and went about it very well.
| Quote: | Oh, and by the way, Andy? Here is the reason I am opposed to the cause of illegal immigrants, at least, I stress again, while the border is not secure: They are here illegally!!! That's it! They broke our laws to get here! Broke our laws Stop mischaracterizing my opinions, for cripe's sake!
I do NOT hate their cause. I do not believe that they hate or even dislike America. I happen to believe that they are grateful for the rewords that we give them.
I understand their strifes and would do the same thing were I in their position. But that doesn't change the fact that the key word here is illegal. The broke our laws to get here, being incredibly unfair to those who wait as much as 20 years to come here legally! It's just not fair to those people at all.
Secure the border, then legalize them and make the system easier or whatever the heck you want. I am FOR that, for the last time. I am for a guest worker program! |
First of all, you need to calm down. Or do you want to get banned from WN again?
Second of all, you're being completely hypocritical. You would do the same thing if you were in their position, yet dislike them for doing something you JUST claimed that you would do yourself? Doesn't make much sense. THAT is a double standard. Not stealing candy bars cause Hispanics told you to.
Third of all, I know they are here illegally. Which is why I said they should be penalized for breaking the law. Although, that penalty should not be deportation.
BTW? You claim you don't want deportation, yet you made a BIG deal about RM agreeing with Link for once! Well, Link said we should round them up, put them on buses, and deport them. Do you agree or not? So which is it? You'll have to understand my confusion. Because when some people talk about deporting them or simply being against the boycott, you vehemently agree. When I say that its wrong for such and such reason. You say that you can understand their plight. Which is it?
Just because you support the boycott, does not mean that you support open borders or illegal immigration. We should lock down the border. We should penalize the illegal immigrants here. Just not by systematically rounding them up and deporting them. You know there ARE people in the middle. This is what I was talking about when it came to absolutes. Just because I don't hate the boycott, does not mean I want illegals everywhere in this country. Likewise, just because someone doesn't like the boycott, that does not mean they are anti-immigrants. A middle ground must be reached. Yes, they DESERVE it. You claim the government owes them nothing. They proved today, after the effects of them not going to work came in, that they do need to be listened to.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 1:19 am |
|
| Quote: | | Well if they don't love, like, or hate America, then what do they feel towards it? |
Appreciation, though I suppose it is right to admit that many of them do love America, just as many of them do simply come here to reel in the benefits of what we have to offer.
| Quote: | | Just because I did not give an equally long geographical essay, does not mean I disregarded what you said. I understand it is more than the US is closer. You posted that to show WHY they come here. I'm saying that those "facts", charts, statistics can never know what is in the mind of a Human being. No matter what you say, you have yet to prove how these people feel towards America. |
I didn't need a geographic essay in response, Founder. The way you came off by saying, "You typed all of that when you could have just said American is closer. The reason I don't buy that is the terrible conditions they go through to get to America. Passing through America to get to Canada would be a breeze...."
THAT was your response. That was it. You didn't say anything about the other arguments I put forth.
Besides, what I was saying there was a response to "They want to come here to better themselves, but they don't love the country. If they wanted to better themselves, why not sneak in Canada? Why choose to stay here of all places? They obviously go through a lot of stuff to get to America. If they don't want to be HERE, why not sneak off to another nation? Guess why?"
I was responding to that with a counter-argument giving you other reasons why they are HERE and not there. What I was saying was ENTIRELY valid and fit entirely within the contextual bounds of your question.
But you are right in saying that I can't say how they all feel, and that's not what I was trying to do, though for the most part that's what I was doing. Many are appreciative, many like us, and many love us. But a lot of people, namely drug smugglers and the like, are here for devilish purposes, and a another large portion (larger), I would say, are her to reel in the benefits of America, nothing more.
But what I was offering was a counter-explanation for why they are here while you were basically saying that the reason they were here and not elsewhere was simply because they like us, or love us. I gave you other logical reasons for that, which, albeit more may truly love us than I have been saying, are the main reasons, for sure, why they are here and not there.
| Quote: | | Not to mention, you act like them coming here is this hardcore evil thing. If they came here and did NO work. Then I would agree that they are simply mooching off the system. They do A LOT of hard work. I'm not saying, they do more than any other American, but they do make a huge bulk of the workforce. When they "criminally" enter their way into America, they make up for it for all the work they do. I too provided proof. Proof that their boycott showed America something. That without them, the economy would hurt. That was just ONE day. If they were all gone, it would be really bad. For a while at least. I'm sure we would recover, in time though. You keep saying this boycott was bad, but any other alternative would be WORSE. Would you prefer rioting? What? So then you could go on a tangent on how bad these people are acting. They acted VERY civilized and fair. A march around the block won't change things. It hasn't yet for the Democrats. They march for the end of the war. They march to get rid of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc. None of it changed a damn thing. This boycott was not just a form of protest, but it was also a way to show America what they were about to lose if they went through with this. They proved their point and went about it very well. |
Hey, man, you've gotta read more closely than you do, and look back to our past debates on this and everything. I mean, come on. Once again, I do not:
-Think that they are evil
-Hate them for coming
-Think that what they are doing is an evil thing
-Think that they should all be deported
-Believe that they are doing a disservice to the US while they're here.
There's that. But also, these guys have a LOT more impact in terms of say then the minority anti-war protestors. Just look at the debate when it was just protesting. Look at how much of an influence they have. It's a LOT more than the anti-war protestors. I mean, Republicans want cheap labor and Democrats want votes. What more is there to say?
| Quote: | | First of all, you need to calm down. Or do you want to get banned from WN again? |
Here's why I'm so frustrated with you. I spent 30 minutes away from studying from my AP Computer Science AP test--a class which I have a D in right now and plan on failing the test or barely passing tomorrow--to present to you a clear, well-thought-out counter argument. And not just any counter argument, but one based on a college-level class that I have been studying since August.
We have gone over these human geography and migration concepts continously over the course of the year and I studied them like hell to get them down. And when I present them in this debate, what do I get from you? "You typed all of that when you could have just said American is closer. The reason I don't buy that is the terrible conditions they go through to get to America. Passing through America to get to Canada would be a breeze...."
No real good explanation, no compliment, no statement on how plausable things are, no well-thought-out counter argument. I just wanted one of those things. Not all, but at least one. It just seemed as though you disregarded all but the Gravity Model in what I said when I was trying to argue clearly and well. And yet I got no such a response.
| Quote: | | Second of all, you're being completely hypocritical. You would do the same thing if you were in their position, yet dislike them for doing something you JUST claimed that you would do yourself? Doesn't make much sense. THAT is a double standard. Not stealing candy bars cause Hispanics told you to. |
No, I'm not being hypocritical. I'm taking the same stance as Bill O'Reilly on this issue.
Yes, I would do the same thing were I in there position. I'm being honest. Who wouldn't? But I have the benefit of being on the other side, and I know that we need to enforce our laws and whatnot. It's not a double standard because I'm only being honest.
Were I in their position I would do the exact same thing. So would you, so would Chris, and so would Kevin. We can't deny that we would.
However, I know that it is illegal and I know that it is breaking the law. I have the benefit of being on the side that can recognize this and realize that we need to enforce our laws and have change and all that.
It's not a double standard. It's honesty.
| Quote: | | Third of all, I know they are here illegally. Which is why I said they should be penalized for breaking the law. Although, that penalty should not be deportation. |
My apologies. I was still thinking that you were taking positions like, "Oh I see. So they're a criminal once they enter this country illegally? Not before? Cause you seem to be implying they are," or "I don't think all of the Mexican "border jumpers" are "criminals" as you so black and whitely put it."
That last sentence was blatently saying that you don't think they're all criminals, and in that regard there is nothing but black and white. You aknowledge that they are here illegally, yet don't aknowledge that they are criminals? Please explain to me how that works.
| Quote: | | BTW? You claim you don't want deportation, yet you made a BIG deal about RM agreeing with Link for once! Well, Link said we should round them up, put them on buses, and deport them. Do you agree or not? So which is it? You'll have to understand my confusion. Because when some people talk about deporting them or simply being against the boycott, you vehemently agree. When I say that its wrong for such and such reason. You say that you can understand their plight. Which is it? |
Please read what I said in my post after Link's:
| Quote: | Well, to an extent, at least. Should they all be deported? Not necessarily, unless the government resolves to stick only with domestic stuff and not secure our borders. Then I�m not so sure.
Should they all be arrested for protesting and whatnot? No. But should they be fired? Not necessarily. They should get the exact same treatment that any normal worker gets--namely, pay cuts and the like. No special treatment in either regard (positive or negative), but just normal punishment. |
What my position is is clearly this: I do NOT believe in deportation. However, if within the next several years the government does not secure our borders and we still have the same amount of illegals entering this country each year, I'm not so sure, though I would still probably be against it because, as I said before,
| Quote: | Founder, you do make a good point with regards to the deportation, and I agree. It would be far from advantageous for us to deport them all. Not to mention it would be impossible and improbable to do so. We shouldn�t do that, for sure. It would just be impossible and would have adverse effects for us, though I don�t think it would be as bad as people are saying, because there are MILLIONS of people around the world just waiting to come to this country that can fill that jobs.
But again, I do recognize the adverse effects that would result from such an action, and agree with you. |
The "not as bad" point is arguable, but with regards to deportation, I've pretty much been steady with that position.
| Quote: | | Just because you support the boycott, does not mean that you support open borders or illegal immigration. We should lock down the border. We should penalize the illegal immigrants here. Just not by systematically rounding them up and deporting them. You know there ARE people in the middle. This is what I was talking about when it came to absolutes. Just because I don't hate the boycott, does not mean I want illegals everywhere in this country. Likewise, just because someone doesn't like the boycott, that does not mean they are anti-immigrants. A middle ground must be reached. Yes, they DESERVE it. You claim the government owes them nothing. They proved today, after the effects of them not going to work came in, that they do need to be listened to. |
Well, I'm glad you agree with that, but what? Those who support the boycott don't support illegal immigration? I would think you'd know more about the protests than that, because that is the point of these protests--to argue against the strict enforcement of our laws. That is exactly what they are doing this for. And you can't tell me otherwise, because one of their organizers was on Hannity and Colmes again tonight and said the exact same thing. Their goal is legalization, without border security.
Next, I do claim that the government owes them nothing, because it DOESN'T. Nor should we allow them to hold us hostage because they provide such a service to us in terms of the economy.
Should we listen to what they say? Slightly, because they are an influential group. But should we obey them because they're important to our economy? No, definitely not. We cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage by these people--by any people. We cannot allow them to influence policy so much that we don't work towards serious change.
Now here's the middle-level I think that we are both at. We differ on the protests, because I find them nothing but wrong and you find them little more than right, including the boycotting of education, but we agree here:
| Quote: | The entire immigration process needs a complete renovation. We need to first secure our borders and crack down on employers who hire illegals, and then we need to do the following:
1. Institute a guest worker program for those currently here illegally.
2. Make it easier to come here legally and to require Green Cards.
3. Work with Mexico to get them to actually HELP rebuild their economy
4. Fix up the process so that it is more fair for all and perhaps eventually let those here illegally, at a point, obtain citizenship.
5. Work on fixing up the porous(sp?) problem at the Canadian border as well.
And as we rework the system we should keep the proper security precautions while making it easier to enter this country legally. Let's try to expedite the process and not make people wait 10 to 20 years to come here, agreed?
That's all fair game. I want to help Mexico to improve, believe me. But they're not going to do it until there's the incentive to, and it will help Mexico in the long-run. |
You are fine with that, are you not? If so, we've just done a lot more than Washington could ever do on this issue We'll have cut through all the animosity and disagreement and gotten down to the core of the issue: securing our borders from the start and then doing all these things to help EVERYONE.
Honestly, I don't get why so many Hispanics are opposed to this type of a measure, because consider: If we crack down on employers and shut down the borders, there will be little to no incentive for Mexico to export its labor to our country. Instead, there will exist the incentive for them to work with us to improve the economy there and the drug cartel corruption and all that. It won't only help them, but it will help us, giving us the labor we need and helping Mexico to improve dramatically--because that's what I want.
I want a system that is clean and efficient and secure. I want a system that protects America and allows us to keep track of who's here and who's not. I want a system that will help Mexico so that we can have another country out of human poverty (especially with all the squatter settlements there...ugh) and walk them out of the hands of the drug lords. It will help our fellow man, our neighbor, and us. It would be a plan that everyone should be able to agree upon.
It is a plan that should be enacted.
Ah, heck. When I get the chance I'll develop a Speech and Debate Congress-style bill laying all this out, and we can have a debate over it Heck, why not bring back the STV Congress, and make this be our starting issue? Come to think of it, if there's enough support, I might just do that...
But I digress.
Anyways, the point is, if we do something like that, which I think is agreeable and fair to all, we, and Mexico, will be much better off.
Due to recent news of the drug legalization, which really shows how much of a friend Mexico is to us, and the fact that the drug cartels are so powerful there, I have found myself preferring Puerto Rico over Mexico for the first year in my life. But, if we do something like this, which will benefit BOTH sides of the border in numerous ways, I'll want to go to Mexico once again.
Again, let me reiterate:
1. I do NOT hate illegals for what they're doing, but rather UNDERSTAND their plight and would do the same thing were I in their position.
2. I AM mad at the protestors, but I am more angry at the Mexican government, and secondarily the US government, for inaction.
3. I am opposed to the protests.
4. I am NOT a supporter of deportation.
5. I am a supporter of the above initiative, which I think will give both sides of the border some much-needed aid.
6. I believe that the reasons that they are here is not because they like us or love us (which I will submit to you now that we can't determine), but is because of those Human Geographic concepts I discussed.
7. I am glad that those people were fired from their jobs over the protests NOT because they were fired, but because they got the equal treatment that any American would get, something everyone deserves for doing such a thing.
8. We can't allow illegals, or Mexico, to hold us hostage, but at the same time we can't allow our country to be put into shambles because we don't have necessary labor, etc. That is why it is important to make a comprehensive approach, but not in the Washington sense of comprehensive, but in a new sense, with a bill discussing two things. First it will discuss how to go about REALLY securing our borders, whether it be through instituting the national guard, a wall, or what have you. Then it discusses what, at a general point (so as not to give people a timetable of when to come), we can do to help Mexico and institute a guest worker program and what have you.
An all-in-one, all-at-once program isn't gonna work. It's only gonna encouarge more illegal immigration.
Just as well, the US government needs to get off its ass and start really working on some change and get right down to the issues, to doing what's good for America, not what's politically expedient.
That, I'm sure, is something we can all agree on.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 1:36 am |
|
My Words
1 - I support the Deportation of all Illegal Immigrants. (The law states anyone who is illegal should be deported back to their respective country.)
2 - This country has the freedom of speech so those people who support illegal immigration have the right to protest.
3 - Saying that we should give free citizenship to anyone illegal in this country is flat out rubbish. First of all my family work their hard earned money for 20 years to get me to live here in the U.S. They worked hard to get visas, social security, and green cards so I can have a better life. and all of these illegal supporters are saying that these people who are here because they crossed the border illegally should get a free pass to citizenship? This angers me very much... some people work hard to get to this country legally through proper payments, paperwork and receiving their visas. These Illegal Immigrants have to right to say they can get whatever they want because they "Worked Hard" to cross the border.
4 - I am not racist, I believe in enforcing border security.
5 - I don't care how hard you work in your job or how horrible your job is. If you are here Illegally means you broke the law and you have no right to be here. Some people work long and hard to come here legally and all of these Illegal Immigrants have no right to get citizenship because they are Illegal.
I rest my case.!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 1:40 am |
|
1. How would you go about deporting as many as 24 million people, especially when they're clearly an important factor to our economy? It's just not physically possible.
2. That is true.
3. I entirely understand your personal opinion there, and that's exactly what I stated in one of my arguments. It's just not fair to those who did much to come here legally for them to have to watch people who didn't follow through with the right process get citizenship and stuff. But since you can't deport them all, I say secure the border and then institute a temporarily guest worker program for those already here.
4. Same here.
5. Exactly, which is why I support a guest worker program over citizenship once we have secured our borders.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 1:47 am |
|
It is funny to hear one of the guess on Fox News and big supporter of illegal immigration say "The U.S. should make everyone who is here illegally citizens so we can track them"
People should never demand something they are not allowed to have. If the law states if you come in illegally you won't become a U.S. Citizen, then it is obvious that is not hard to understand.
I am sick of these Latinos calling anyone who want to enforce border security a racist.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 8:04 am |
|
What a mess!
1) We need to secure the borders. Without that, nothing else will change.
2) We cannot deport all of the people who are here illegally. But it is imperative that all residents of the US (legal or otherwise) have proper documentation. This means we need to identify everyone who does not have a clear "paper trail" showing their legal right to be in the US.
3) We need to stop any company from employing anyone who is illegally in the US. That decreases the incentive to come here illegally, and makes it harder to stay here without support. We need to provide the existing "illegal immigrants" documentation, similar to a work visa, to allow them to stay here - provided they apply for citizenship.
4) We need to force companies to pay the minimum wage, even to "guest workers". And pay the proper fees and taxes. Immigrants put a burden on the economy, as surely as they benefit it. Both they and their employers must do their part for the economy.
5) The already resident non-legal "immigrants" should be required to go through a procedure for citizenship, just as those who went through the system legally. They MUST EARN their citizenship. And ONLY CITIZENS should be allowed to vote.
6) This will strike many as unfair, but it is not. We need to give citizens the "first right of refusal" for jobs (meaning if a citizen and "guest worker" both apply, the citizen gets the offer first). We will find out just how bad we "need" non-American workers.
7) Once this has all been put in place, we can then look at changing the process for legal immigration. I will be the first to admit that the current process is broken. But the harsh economic truth is that America can no longer simply open her arms to any and all who want to come here.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 10:37 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Appreciation, though I suppose it is right to admit that many of them do love America, just as many of them do simply come here to reel in the benefits of what we have to offer.
Agreed.
I didn't need a geographic essay in response, Founder. The way you came off by saying, "You typed all of that when you could have just said American is closer. The reason I don't buy that is the terrible conditions they go through to get to America. Passing through America to get to Canada would be a breeze...."
THAT was your response. That was it. You didn't say anything about the other arguments I put forth.
Besides, what I was saying there was a response to "They want to come here to better themselves, but they don't love the country. If they wanted to better themselves, why not sneak in Canada? Why choose to stay here of all places? They obviously go through a lot of stuff to get to America. If they don't want to be HERE, why not sneak off to another nation? Guess why?"
I was responding to that with a counter-argument giving you other reasons why they are HERE and not there. What I was saying was ENTIRELY valid and fit entirely within the contextual bounds of your question.
But you are right in saying that I can't say how they all feel, and that's not what I was trying to do, though for the most part that's what I was doing. Many are appreciative, many like us, and many love us. But a lot of people, namely drug smugglers and the like, are here for devilish purposes, and a another large portion (larger), I would say, are her to reel in the benefits of America, nothing more.
But what I was offering was a counter-explanation for why they are here while you were basically saying that the reason they were here and not elsewhere was simply because they like us, or love us. I gave you other logical reasons for that, which, albeit more may truly love us than I have been saying, are the main reasons, for sure, why they are here and not there.
Yes, I understand the reasons they are here. Everything you said in your college essay stuff was right. But again, I don't agree that ALL of them come here simply for those reasons you listed. Again, the facts can not account for internal feelings and reasoning. It can only assume. But I do agree that a large percentange of them come for the reasons you posted.
Hey, man, you've gotta read more closely than you do, and look back to our past debates on this and everything. I mean, come on. Once again, I do not:
-Think that they are evil
-Hate them for coming
-Think that what they are doing is an evil thing
-Think that they should all be deported
-Believe that they are doing a disservice to the US while they're here.
You're doing it again. You're jumping in your views. I do agree that you never said they are evil or hate them for coming, although the way you speak about it doesn't seem to say otherwise. But I know you better and I know you would never hate a group of people and the racist comment was out of anger. But the last two parts are confusing. You agreed with Link about deportation. I know that you later said that you do not support deportation, but you're switching views over and over and over. Thus, the confusion. I know you don't believe they are doing a disservice to the US. What you said later on in this post proves it...
There's that. But also, these guys have a LOT more impact in terms of say then the minority anti-war protestors. Just look at the debate when it was just protesting. Look at how much of an influence they have. It's a LOT more than the anti-war protestors. I mean, Republicans want cheap labor and Democrats want votes. What more is there to say?
Perhaps. Although, MINORITY anti-war protestors? Yeah right. The majority of Americans are anti-war.
Here's why I'm so frustrated with you. I spent 30 minutes away from studying from my AP Computer Science AP test--a class which I have a D in right now and plan on failing the test or barely passing tomorrow--to present to you a clear, well-thought-out counter argument. And not just any counter argument, but one based on a college-level class that I have been studying since August.
We have gone over these human geography and migration concepts continously over the course of the year and I studied them like hell to get them down. And when I present them in this debate, what do I get from you? "You typed all of that when you could have just said American is closer. The reason I don't buy that is the terrible conditions they go through to get to America. Passing through America to get to Canada would be a breeze...."
No real good explanation, no compliment, no statement on how plausable things are, no well-thought-out counter argument. I just wanted one of those things. Not all, but at least one. It just seemed as though you disregarded all but the Gravity Model in what I said when I was trying to argue clearly and well. And yet I got no such a response.
It doesn't matter why you're so frustrated with me. The admin. and mods won't care about our excuses. I think both of us are on a short leashe due to our...strong vocal views of late in WN. I'm trying to help you. Don't push it or we will both get banned. I know that you have the capability to discuss this without yelling. I already commented on how your facts and statistics and such were right, but don't account for ALL immigrants.
No, I'm not being hypocritical. I'm taking the same stance as Bill O'Reilly on this issue.
Yes, I would do the same thing were I in there position. I'm being honest. Who wouldn't? But I have the benefit of being on the other side, and I know that we need to enforce our laws and whatnot. It's not a double standard because I'm only being honest.
Were I in their position I would do the exact same thing. So would you, so would Chris, and so would Kevin. We can't deny that we would.
However, I know that it is illegal and I know that it is breaking the law. I have the benefit of being on the side that can recognize this and realize that we need to enforce our laws and have change and all that.
It's not a double standard. It's honesty.
Yes it is honesty, but it is also hypocritical. You're angry at them for doing something that YOU yourself would do. It makes no sense. Thats like me saying "I'd be REALLY furious if people followed Catholic traditions. SICKENING! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to Mass."
My apologies. I was still thinking that you were taking positions like, "Oh I see. So they're a criminal once they enter this country illegally? Not before? Cause you seem to be implying they are," or "I don't think all of the Mexican "border jumpers" are "criminals" as you so black and whitely put it."
No, I still have those views. They are criminals only by name but not be intention.(Well at least the ones that aren't drug dealers, rapists, etc. REAL criminals).
That last sentence was blatently saying that you don't think they're all criminals, and in that regard there is nothing but black and white. You aknowledge that they are here illegally, yet don't aknowledge that they are criminals? Please explain to me how that works.
I just explained it above. I feel that criminal is too strong of a word and not really accurate. We don't call our founding fathers criminals, yet that term could be used for them. Its not accurate though is it?
Please read what I said in my post after Link's:
| Quote: | Well, to an extent, at least. Should they all be deported? Not necessarily, unless the government resolves to stick only with domestic stuff and not secure our borders. Then I�m not so sure.
Should they all be arrested for protesting and whatnot? No. But should they be fired? Not necessarily. They should get the exact same treatment that any normal worker gets--namely, pay cuts and the like. No special treatment in either regard (positive or negative), but just normal punishment. |
Ah I see. My apologies.
What my position is is clearly this: I do NOT believe in deportation. However, if within the next several years the government does not secure our borders and we still have the same amount of illegals entering this country each year, I'm not so sure, though I would still probably be against it because, as I said before,
I'm not sure if it will last "years" to be honest. This is blowing up and I think its going to be addressed.
The "not as bad" point is arguable, but with regards to deportation, I've pretty much been steady with that position.
Yes, more or less.
Well, I'm glad you agree with that, but what? Those who support the boycott don't support illegal immigration? I would think you'd know more about the protests than that, because that is the point of these protests--to argue against the strict enforcement of our laws. That is exactly what they are doing this for. And you can't tell me otherwise, because one of their organizers was on Hannity and Colmes again tonight and said the exact same thing. Their goal is legalization, without border security.
No. Not ALL of them are fighting for legalization. There are radical immigrants that want all benfits and even an open border. There are moderate ones that want a closed border, but want legalization. MOST just want to go back to the way things were. They don't care about the border or legelzation perse, but they just want to go back to work. And no, those who support the boycott do not support illegal immigration. Not ALL at least.
Next, I do claim that the government owes them nothing, because it DOESN'T. Nor should we allow them to hold us hostage because they provide such a service to us in terms of the economy.
Should we listen to what they say? Slightly, because they are an influential group. But should we obey them because they're important to our economy? No, definitely not. We cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage by these people--by any people. We cannot allow them to influence policy so much that we don't work towards serious change.
Now here's the middle-level I think that we are both at. We differ on the protests, because I find them nothing but wrong and you find them little more than right, including the boycotting of education, but we agree here:
They aren't holding us hostage. As you so eloquently said, we would recover if we did deport them. They are simply trying to prove how influential they are to the economy and they ARE. A lot of people roll their eyes when immigrant supporters say "They do the menial jobs that no one wants." Its true and they are important for it.
| Quote: | The entire immigration process needs a complete renovation. We need to first secure our borders and crack down on employers who hire illegals, and then we need to do the following:
1. Institute a guest worker program for those currently here illegally.
2. Make it easier to come here legally and to require Green Cards.
3. Work with Mexico to get them to actually HELP rebuild their economy
4. Fix up the process so that it is more fair for all and perhaps eventually let those here illegally, at a point, obtain citizenship.
5. Work on fixing up the porous(sp?) problem at the Canadian border as well.
And as we rework the system we should keep the proper security precautions while making it easier to enter this country legally. Let's try to expedite the process and not make people wait 10 to 20 years to come here, agreed?
Agree 100%. Although I admit, I'm not familiar with a Canadian border problem.
That's all fair game. I want to help Mexico to improve, believe me. But they're not going to do it until there's the incentive to, and it will help Mexico in the long-run. |
True true. Personally, I think we COULD help Mexico, but should? I don't know to be honest. If we can, I say go for it. But Mexico has a lot of shaping up to do. Its almost as crappy as my beloved Cuba, if not more.
You are fine with that, are you not? If so, we've just done a lot more than Washington could ever do on this issue We'll have cut through all the animosity and disagreement and gotten down to the core of the issue: securing our borders from the start and then doing all these things to help EVERYONE.
Agreed.
Honestly, I don't get why so many Hispanics are opposed to this type of a measure, because consider: If we crack down on employers and shut down the borders, there will be little to no incentive for Mexico to export its labor to our country. Instead, there will exist the incentive for them to work with us to improve the economy there and the drug cartel corruption and all that. It won't only help them, but it will help us, giving us the labor we need and helping Mexico to improve dramatically--because that's what I want.
Hispanics are opposed to it because a good percentage of them are illegal and they fear deportation or criminalization. I think what you're saying is correct, BUT it isn't being said properly by our government. So they don't see the US is trying to HELP. NOT hurt.
I want a system that is clean and efficient and secure. I want a system that protects America and allows us to keep track of who's here and who's not. I want a system that will help Mexico so that we can have another country out of human poverty (especially with all the squatter settlements there...ugh) and walk them out of the hands of the drug lords. It will help our fellow man, our neighbor, and us. It would be a plan that everyone should be able to agree upon.
It is a plan that should be enacted.
Agree 100%.
Ah, heck. When I get the chance I'll develop a Speech and Debate Congress-style bill laying all this out, and we can have a debate over it Heck, why not bring back the STV Congress, and make this be our starting issue? Come to think of it, if there's enough support, I might just do that...
But I digress.
Anyways, the point is, if we do something like that, which I think is agreeable and fair to all, we, and Mexico, will be much better off.
Due to recent news of the drug legalization, which really shows how much of a friend Mexico is to us, and the fact that the drug cartels are so powerful there, I have found myself preferring Puerto Rico over Mexico for the first year in my life. But, if we do something like this, which will benefit BOTH sides of the border in numerous ways, I'll want to go to Mexico once again.
Again, let me reiterate:
1. I do NOT hate illegals for what they're doing, but rather UNDERSTAND their plight and would do the same thing were I in their position.
2. I AM mad at the protestors, but I am more angry at the Mexican government, and secondarily the US government, for inaction.
3. I am opposed to the protests.
4. I am NOT a supporter of deportation.
5. I am a supporter of the above initiative, which I think will give both sides of the border some much-needed aid.
6. I believe that the reasons that they are here is not because they like us or love us (which I will submit to you now that we can't determine), but is because of those Human Geographic concepts I discussed.
7. I am glad that those people were fired from their jobs over the protests NOT because they were fired, but because they got the equal treatment that any American would get, something everyone deserves for doing such a thing.
8. We can't allow illegals, or Mexico, to hold us hostage, but at the same time we can't allow our country to be put into shambles because we don't have necessary labor, etc. That is why it is important to make a comprehensive approach, but not in the Washington sense of comprehensive, but in a new sense, with a bill discussing two things. First it will discuss how to go about REALLY securing our borders, whether it be through instituting the national guard, a wall, or what have you. Then it discusses what, at a general point (so as not to give people a timetable of when to come), we can do to help Mexico and institute a guest worker program and what have you.
An all-in-one, all-at-once program isn't gonna work. It's only gonna encouarge more illegal immigration.
Just as well, the US government needs to get off its ass and start really working on some change and get right down to the issues, to doing what's good for America, not what's politically expedient.
That, I'm sure, is something we can all agree on. |
Perfectly said, agreed, more or less.
| borgslayer wrote: | | 1 - I support the Deportation of all Illegal Immigrants. (The law states anyone who is illegal should be deported back to their respective country.) |
Yeah, lets do that and kill our economy. While we're at it, I say we go to war with North Korea and Iran. That was we can screw oursevles domestically and abroad!
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 1:42 pm |
|
Their already here, sending them back will be really hard. what should happen, is secure our borders, amke it easy for people to come here LEGALLY, and help those that are here, make a better lives, and help them become a contributing member of our scocity
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 4:05 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
They have every right to protest. They are doing so peacefully and with warning. I see the point of what they are doing: they are trying to show people who want them all deported to see what it would be like without them. Consider it a test to see how we deal without them. I think that's where their thought processes are right now.
I understand that those that are here illegally are doing just that: breaking the law. However, as several people have said, it would be virtually impossible to deport them all. Barring all idealistic goals and plans, what do we do? I don't know the answer, but I think these are the steps we should take -- slowly. I say slowly because this is a HUGE issue and it is more important to get it done correctly than to get it done quickly.
1. Figure out (roughly) how many illegals are here, where they are, what jobs they have, and what they are earning, as well as trying to seperate out how long they've been here. Perhaps and anonymous collection of survey infornmation collected through physical polling places (without legal reprecusions for those illegals who do show up).
2. Criteria. What should the criteria be for citizenship? Should we declair some kind of special circumstance in order to make the process faster temporarily?
3. Borders. We need to secure our borders more carefully. This will (hopefully) prevent a flood illegal immigrants should we temporarily loosen citizenship requirements (big if).
4. Prioritize. Who should get citizenship first? Based on jobs? Families? Estimated time in the States?
5. Re-evaluate. Should we overhaul the citizenship requirements? What benefits should we offer-- English classes? Voter registration? Government classes? Employment services?
And I know we've already done some of that, but this is a monster of an issue, and it's not one that is going to just solve itself with a single bill in Congress.
I apologize if I've just repeated something that's already been said, I tried to read through the last three pages of post, but I was having some difficulty following it. 
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 4:08 pm |
|
| TrekkieMage wrote: | | Quote: | | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
They have every right to protest. They are doing so peacefully and with warning. I see the point of what they are doing: they are trying to show people who want them all deported to see what it would be like without them. Consider it a test to see how we deal without them. I think that's where their thought processes are right now.
I understand that those that are here illegally are doing just that: breaking the law. However, as several people have said, it would be virtually impossible to deport them all. Barring all idealistic goals and plans, what do we do? I don't know the answer, but I think these are the steps we should take -- slowly. I say slowly because this is a HUGE issue and it is more important to get it done correctly than to get it done quickly.
1. Figure out (roughly) how many illegals are here, where they are, what jobs they have, and what they are earning, as well as trying to seperate out how long they've been here. Perhaps and anonymous collection of survey infornmation collected through physical polling places (without legal reprecusions for those illegals who do show up).
2. Criteria. What should the criteria be for citizenship? Should we declair some kind of special circumstance in order to make the process faster temporarily?
3. Borders. We need to secure our borders more carefully. This will (hopefully) prevent a flood illegal immigrants should we temporarily loosen citizenship requirements (big if).
4. Prioritize. Who should get citizenship first? Based on jobs? Families? Estimated time in the States?
5. Re-evaluate. Should we overhaul the citizenship requirements? What benefits should we offer-- English classes? Voter registration? Government classes? Employment services?
And I know we've already done some of that, but this is a monster of an issue, and it's not one that is going to just solve itself with a single bill in Congress.
I apologize if I've just repeated something that's already been said, I tried to read through the last three pages of post, but I was having some difficulty following it. |
That is my view point as well. Brilliantly said.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 4:11 pm |
|
^Def, Andy. She said that quiet well. To bad the courrpt officals in DC can't see something like this...
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue May 02, 2006 4:13 pm |
|
Thank you. Sometimes I just get so wrapped up in my thoughts that they come out mangled
As much as I want to say I have a firm stance on the issue, I don't. All I know is that we need to be careful, go slow, and make sure that we reach a compromise that works. We have to remember that - breaking the law or not - these are people we're talking about. And not only that, families who have worked their butts off to give their children a better future. We really have to be careful.
And LB, as for those corrupt officials in DC - I live near DC
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
