"myths And Half-truths About Illegal Immigration"

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger In other words, if his gang is bigger than your's he is right? I think I heard something like that in second grade, and I rejected it then as well. Keith

It doesn't matter if he's right, his gang is bigger than you, leave the country if you don't like it. That's a democracy, the tyrrany of the majority.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It doesn't matter if he's right, his gang is bigger than you, leave the country if you don't like it. That's a democracy, the tyrrany of the majority.

Which brings us to the objection to Athena's worship of democracy. Democracy is not inherently moral.

This country was not founded to be a "democracy". Democracies can become immoral. What you are asking is that we give up the values on which this country was founded, so we can meet your, obviously, amoral system that has been foisted upon this country.

Keith

[Blef]

Quote by: Cephus Nothing is stopping you from seeking out that permission, they are only making sure that what you are doing, you are doing safely. They have an obligation, for the public good, to regulate things that could cause potential hazards. Certainly I can't imagine cutting hair to be all that hazardous, but other things could be. I'd never want to live in a country where doctors were not regulated, for instance.

No one has the right to deny or grant me permission.

I think you may be confusing the justification for a law with the actual reason for a law. Sometimes they are not the same thing. Much (not all) regulation exists to protect industries and established businesses from competition, or it is just plain money-sucking government-building theft that people will support based on skillful manipulation of public opinion. "Sin" taxes fall in that latter category. "Blue laws" serve the former purpose. Neither are justified (sold) that way to citizens; they are both wrapped up in other more plausible-sounding justification.

Be that as it may, some people don't appreciate being protected against their will. I can think for myself, and I do.

Quote by: Cephus That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Personally, I don't go for anarchy.

You prefer serfdom? You like to be ruled, to be told what you may and may not do? Fine, go ahead and take the blue pill. I know some people find that soothing and less perplexing. I'll take the red pill all the same.

[Blef]

Quote by: Cephus Right and wrong are purely subjective and utterly irrelevant. Illegal aliens are breaking the law, period. They need to be prosecuted for their crimes, period. If you don't like the current immigration laws, there are methods that you can use to try to have them changed. Once you have changed them, then we'll talk. Until then, illegal aliens are still criminals. Deal with it.

Right and wrong are not subjective. That's the relativist fallacy.

Slavery was once legal, discriminating against blacks was once legal. In some countries still an adulteress can be stoned to death. Capital punishment is legal here but not in Mexico, so do you say that it is right here but wrong there? You think it was once right to own slaves because slavery was legal, but it is no longer right to own slaves because slavery is no longer legal?

So you say that legality determines morality? Changing the law changes right and wrong? Now please explain how the doctrine of jury nullification fits in with your concept. It is based on exactly the opposite belief from the one you've expressed.

[Blef]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Sure, try it, but you may end up having a revolution of one, considering you need organization, implying some sort of government to run a large revolution.

Wrong tack. I didn't say I was going to try it. I'm more devious than that. This is a discussion of principle, not a plan to revolt.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It is man's natural state to be governed because mankind desires power, so the advantaged will govern the weak. No one governs the governors besides the people, if they decide they want a new governor.

If man's natural state is to be governed, then there must be people who have the right to exercise governance, the right to coerce others, to determine what others may do; it is the exercise of a property owner over his property. How did they get that right to own other people? Answer: They didn't. The exercise of authority over another person is an act of aggression.

Man's natural condition is one of self-ownership, NOT ownership by others. No one else can live in your body, think with your mind, be responsible for your actions but you. No one can own you, thus no one can legitimately govern you.

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Your rights are only protected by a government, without the government that protects your rights, they are just philosophical musings, because if I'm bigger and stronger than you, and I want your house, your right to property doesn't matter so much without a government to stop me, does it?

I almost forgot. You're Hobbesian, aren't you? Expecting anarchism to lead to the chaotic war of all against all? Or do you imagine that social cooperation is only possible under threat of punishment for transgressions?

If the state can achieve an order of social equilibrium through aggression and the commission of violence against mostly innocent individuals (i.e., against the vast majority of people who are not "criminals"), what makes you think such equilibrium cannot also be achieved by non-coercive means?

What you seem to be saying is that you condone violence and naked aggression against innocent people. Why? Because you cannot imagine an alternative? Because it is expedient? It doesn't make it right, regardless.

A private criminal is willing to commit violence to satisfy his own needs. A state-advocate is willing to condone state-sponsored violence to satisfy society's needs. In neither case is aggression actually justified.

Were you aware before now that you have a criminal mind?

[Blef]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Except the policeman with the gun, if he can enforce the laws and the people agree with them, than they are legitimate

And now you claim that might makes right, and that the idea that states are legitimate is proven by the consent of the masses.

If a majority of men agree that women exist to serve the needs of men, and that raping a women is a man's prerogative, you would support this under the "might makes right" and "consent of the masses" rule too?

Criminal behavior is not justified simply because it is condoned by a majority. There's that evidence of your criminal mind again.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RickSp Just like blacks under the Fugitive Slave Act or Jews under the Nuremberg Laws. Interesting how bigotry suddenly is represented by as "respect for the law." Some laws don't deserve respect. Let's see. I come from a country founded by immigrants who regularly flouted the laws of the King. Part of proud heritage of freedom. Not something you might understand apparently.

The crap is still dribbling down your chin, I see. Regulating immigration has absolutely no connection to, and is totally NOT "Just like" either of your two examples. Your claim of "bigotry" in regard to respect for the law is totally unsupported, as is the asinine claim that the country was founded by immigrants that "flouted the laws". Your use of slurs and inuendo to attempt to advance your debate is disgusting.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Zeebadee The crap is still dribbling down your chin, I see. Regulating immigration has absolutely no connection to, and is totally NOT "Just like" either of your two examples. Your claim of "bigotry" in regard to respect for the law is totally unsupported, as is the asinine claim that the country was founded by immigrants that "flouted the laws". Your use of slurs and inuendo to attempt to advance your debate is disgusting.

LOL. You ignore my points and then insult me. Kettle meet pot.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. You ignore my points and then insult me. Kettle meet pot.

Which of your "points" did I not address? Let me know, and I'll be more specific.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Blef Nations and their governments have no authority to rule, to pass law and enforce it, to stop people from coming and going where they will. Only private property owners have that right.

Of course they do. It was agreed upon when the nation was founded. What nation doesn't have the right to govern? Why wouldn't a government have the right? Are you suggesting that no entity has the right to govern? If so, any support?

There is no such thing as illegal immigration. Only trespass.

Claiming it =/= supporting it, nor does it make it true.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: RickSp Let's see. I come from a country founded by immigrants who regularly flouted the laws of the King. Part of proud heritage of freedom. Not something you might understand apparently.

Immigrants who created new laws to govern by.

If illegals want the law changed and want to milk taxpayers of another country and bankrupt economies, well, let them march in the streets or take up arms. I don't think in the history of the world, it's ever worked, but they are certainly welcome to try.

Wait...they did try and it didn't work. It did releive a bit of traffic on CA highways though...perhaps they should "boycott" every day...that'd be quite nice actually.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger That's because right and wrong ARE NOT "purely subjective". Some things are right, and others are just plain wrong.

Prove it.

Murder is wrong.

While I might agree with you on that, I can come up with quite a few examples where I might think murder would be right. If you met young Hitler back before he took power in Germany and knew, for a fact, what was coming, would it be wrong to murder him to keep the Holocaust from occurring?

The world is not a black and white place. Right and wrong are purely subjective concepts.

Now, somewhere in here, keeping people out of this country because of the color of their skin or the geographical circumstances of their birth lies.

It has nothing to do with the color of their skin or their country of origin, it has to do with whether or not they follow the proscribed procedures for entering this country legally or not and nothing else. Open borders people keep conveniently forgetting that simple fact.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Blef No one has the right to deny or grant me permission.

Give me a break. My house, my rules. If I don't want you in my house, I can tell you to leave.

Our nation, our rules. Follow the rules or go the hell away.

Sheesh, and we have to explain this to you?

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Cephus If you met young Hitler back before he took power in Germany and knew, for a fact, what was coming, would it be wrong to murder him to keep the Holocaust from occurring?

Yes. To murder any innocent being is immoral. Moral values aren't absolute in the sense that all immoral actions are equal, there is an heirarchy. For instance, stealing a pack of gum is not equal to or worse than child molestation. The latter, has a far greater immoral value attached to it.

Likewise, murder, while immoral, when compared to Hitler's atrocities, would be less wrong (than the butchering of millions).

However, I would argue that a superior moral path would be to reason with Hitler while he is still impressionable. Hitler didn't always have the views he had in his later life Cephus.

A movie that explores this very concept and scenerio, is Last Supper, a very good flick.

[brien]

When illegals are all made citizens, then they will be paid higher wages because they will suddenly be elgible for minimum wage, or in the case of agriculture, what ever the minimum wage is there. Furthermore, illegals will suddenly be elgible for all jobs in the US and they will begin to rise through the levels of employment in the economy. Wokers in the American economy aren't stagnant, nor do they remain in minimum wage jobs, all of their working lives. They gain experience and move up through the economy. This all spells bad news for employers who are currently enjoying the exploitation of the illegal worker by paying substandard wages. Look for prices to rise as the cost of labor rises.

So like it or not, making illegals legal in one fell swoop will cause industry more problems than they have now. The cost of labor will rise accordingly and the "cheap" labor pool will eventually shrink away as those twelve million workers begin their assimilation into the legal workplace and North American society.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Blef Nations and their governments have no authority to rule, to pass law and enforce it, to stop people from coming and going where they will. Only private property owners have that right.

If there is no authority to rule, or to pass laws, then there is also no authority to grant you "private property" rights. You'd be able to exercise what you consider "rights" for only as long as you could prevent someone stronger from taking by force your property.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: brien When illegals are all made citizens, then they will be paid higher wages because they will suddenly be elgible for minimum wage, or in the case of agriculture, what ever the minimum wage is there. Furthermore, illegals will suddenly be elgible for all jobs in the US and they will begin to rise through the levels of employment in the economy. Wokers in the American economy aren't stagnant, nor do they remain in minimum wage jobs, all of their working lives. They gain experience and move up through the economy. This all spells bad news for employers who are currently enjoying the exploitation of the illegal worker by paying substandard wages. Look for prices to rise as the cost of labor rises. So like it or not, making illegals legal in one fell swoop will cause industry more problems than they have now. The cost of labor will rise accordingly and the "cheap" labor pool will eventually shrink away as those twelve million workers begin their assimilation into the legal workplace and North American society.

I believe that you're making a false assumption here. Giving current illegals citizen status will do nothing to stop the flow of illegals. Amnesty programs of the past have proved that several times now. People that are willing to work for low wages are going to continue to displace higher paid workers no matter what the minimum wage is. Like bush's Iraq policy, the solution to the problems of low-wage workers being exploited is not to allow more of them into the country, legally or otherwise.

[brien]

Quote by: Zeebadee I believe that you're making a false assumption here. Giving current illegals citizen status will do nothing to stop the flow of illegals. Amnesty programs of the past have proved that several times now. People that are willing to work for low wages are going to continue to displace higher paid workers no matter what the minimum wage is. Like bush's Iraq policy, the solution to the problems of low-wage workers being exploited is not to allow more of them into the country, legally or otherwise.

You are correct Zee. I am assuming the border would be sealed after the amnesty program went into effect. If this is not the case, then making 12 million new citizens will only benefit the politicians who will court their vote.

[Cephus]

Quote by: brien When illegals are all made citizens, then they will be paid higher wages because they will suddenly be elgible for minimum wage, or in the case of agriculture, what ever the minimum wage is there.

When illegals are made citizens, they'll all get fired and a new batch of illegals will be hired at the same low wages. Why do you think they're being employed now? Because they work cheap and they can't complain! The second they don't work cheap and complain, they won't have jobs.

Sheesh, and to think I have to point these simple facts out.

[Cephus]

Quote by: brien You are correct Zee. I am assuming the border would be sealed after the amnesty program went into effect. If this is not the case, then making 12 million new citizens will only benefit the politicians who will court their vote.

Why, it wasn't sealed the last time. The open borders crowd doesn't want it sealed, EVER. 20 years ago, we legalized 4 million illegals and said never again. Now, we're talking about legalizing 12+ million and saying never again. In another 20 years, we'll be doing it for 50 million.

It won't ever stop because we won't ever defend our borders. If we had done it 20 years ago like we were supposed to, we wouldn't be in this pickle right now.