Imigration

[DuncanONeil]

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

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

Actually the article provides nothing to the discussion. In fact I consider it a distraction, especially since the head of ICE has told the world that illegals referred to ICE may be ignored.

[DuncanONeil]

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

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

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

Sorry your info is incorrect. The baby is granted citizenship by the Constitution but the mother is granted no such status!

[DuncanONeil]

Two different documents.
Again you are confusing varying types of rights. Those referred to in the Declaration are as stated. Constitutional rights are citizen based. To go deeper the Constitution actually is a document that LIMITS rights, but only the rights of Government. Something that has been totally ignored for several decades!

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

[DuncanONeil]

Again a false premise.
The job is not illegal, the worker IS.

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



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

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



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

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



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



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



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


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



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



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

[DuncanONeil]

In response to Jennifer.
So the fact that there was a sign is somehow proof that the person is opposed to Hispanics?
At least people that come into the store will not try to conduct business in Spanish! What does it say that my closest chain supermarket has made it impossible for me to conduct business with the person employed behind the meat counter. I was incapable of ordering a specific cut of meat cut to my specification since the person behind the counter could not understand; "I'd like two pounds of sirloin cut in 1/4" slices." It took nearly three minutes just to get any kind of communication across and although I did get my meat, since I was able to point, I do not believe I was well served. This is just wrong. Add to that I have not one clue before actual contact that there would be any difficulty!
Hey? Does that mean that this meat cutting job was an illegal job?

[DuncanONeil]

Federal law requires every alien in the country LEGALLY to carry on their person their "certificate of alien registration". (8 USC Sec 1304(e))

e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.

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

Is that profiling?

[DuncanONeil]

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

Actually I think it was a very poor decision to vacation in Iraq! I often wonder just how they got the documents to travel to Iraq in the first place?
But I can not avoid the fact that it is a good example of how others consider their borders.

[MMI]

I don't normally respond to the yellow writing, no matter how much of it there is, but there's nothing wrong in espousing a cause out of emotion.

In fact, show me proposition that is based on pure logic alone.

[MMI]

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

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

Perhaps, by now, you are beginning to realise that it is we who are in the minority, so if you need your hand holding for moral support, let me know.

[MMI]

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

Not in the US. While they may not be able to get a driver's license, their children can be sent to schools, and they are eligible for both free breakfasts and lunches. They get medical aid simply by showing up in a clinic or emergency room. I don't know about food stamps, off hand, but there are other social services that they can apply for without having their names turned over to the INS. Unless I have been badly misinformed, there are some places where it is illegal to turn them over to the Feds unless they actually violate a law. (Other than being illegal in the first place, that is.)

Then I withdraw my charges against the USA, which, according to your description, is behaving as a responsible nation should. It seems, therefore, that there is a group of people within the country that is agitating for harsher treatment for their fellow humans, using often emotional and perjorative arguments substantiated by selected misinformation. If they were not so vocal perhaps they would not matter.

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

Yes, some are branded as criminals in their home countries, and there are laws here to protect such refugees. Cubans, in particular, are generally protected from deportation, provided they can safely reach the US. Other nationalities can also apply for refugee status, which is different than immigration. If there is a recognized threat of persecution for those being sent back, they will not be.

I think you miss my point: I contend that the majority of illegal immigrants - the economic immigrants, if you like - never broke a law while living in their original homes, and would never break a law in the USA if they were allowed to stay. The only law they broke was entering your country without permission.

Did you know "The New Colossus" before Jennifer Williams quoted it? I didn't but I looked it up, and for the benefit of those who have never heard/read it before, I reporduce it below. Such noble words!

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

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

Still trying to get the colonies back, are you? Just remember, while the rebellion was a criminal act in England, the cause was just. Obviously. Because they won. Twice.

You know what they say: Those fighting for me are freedom fighters, those fighting against me are terrorists.

Twice? I think you might find the Canadians would have something to say about that ... for us, both wars were a distraction ... a side show. The real wars were being fought elsewhere.

But I'm interested in what you say about treason (it was treason in the colonies, by the way, not just in England). You say, while the rebellion was a criminal act in England, the cause was just. While I cannot accept a land-grab by wealthy settlers interested in trading with the enemy is ever just, it intrrigues me that Americans, by your own words, can break the law when they feel it is justifiable, yet will not accept that a bad American law can be sidestepped

... They are breaking the law! That's all I care about!

[DuncanONeil]

But for some people the only arguments they have are emotional. I see noting wrong with a person having strong emotions on a subject but it would seem that they would better serve themselves and their position if they included data points that are evidentiary in nature.

I don't normally respond to the yellow writing, no matter how much of it there is, but there's nothing wrong in espousing a cause out of emotion.

In fact, show me proposition that is based on pure logic alone.

[Thorne]

The only law they broke was entering your country without permission.

At least you admit that they have broken the law. That's a step in the right direction, I suppose.

Twice? I think you might find the Canadians would have something to say about that ... for us, both wars were a distraction ... a side show. The real wars were being fought elsewhere.

Perhaps you're forgetting the war of 1812? The one that ended in 1814? Shortly before the British got their butts handed to them at New Orleans? They even wrote a song about it!

But I'm interested in what you say about treason (it was treason in the colonies, by the way, not just in England).

Only until the British surrendered.

You say, while the rebellion was a criminal act in England, the cause was just. While I cannot accept a land-grab by wealthy settlers interested in trading with the enemy is ever just,

It was just because they won. If they'd lost they would have been hanged as traitors. And that would have been just, too.

it intrrigues me that Americans, by your own words, can break the law when they feel it is justifiable, yet will not accept that a bad American law can be sidestepped

So are you implying that the illegal immigrants should unite and form a rebellion? Wouldn't that be a land-grab by poor criminals? Wouldn't that make them traitors?

Or perhaps you are just saying that any 'bad' law can be ignored, sidestepped if you will. But then, who decides what's a bad law? If I believe that the laws against murder are 'bad' laws, does that mean I can ignore them? I could just head on down to the border and open fire indiscriminately. Because the law against that is a 'bad' law!

No, I don't think that would work. We must have laws, or we'll all suffer. And if we don't like a law we must change it, not ignore it. The law can be changed from within, legally, through due process, or it can be changed illegally, from without, through rebellion. But if you go that route you must be prepared to set up your own government, with your own laws. And I can guarantee that those laws will provide for some kind of defense against cross-border incursions by foreign nationals. After all, you wouldn't want some lazy johnny-come-latelys to take back all that you stole in the first place, would you?

[Jennifer Williams]

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

So sorry, Duncan! You hadn't said anything for awhile, so I thought you were gone. Bad assumption on my part.

You are not arguing from a position of logic but a position of heart.

Well of course it's a matter of heart. I have both a heart and a mind 100% of the time; I can't just shut off one or the other. Neither can anyone, so don't pretend your heart doesn't affect how you think.

While logic has it's place, so do emotions, and you need both reasoning and emotions to make good decisions.

[quote] Do you really believe that human rights trump legal rights?

Um...of course they do. No law can be written that can remove a person's humanity, nor remove their rights to the basic necessities of life. Though I suppose one could argue over what basic necessities are, they obviously include food, water, safety from death, etc.

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

Not at all. There isn't a person anywhere who can stop being human for a moment; so therefore, human rights always apply, and in this country we believe that a person's human rights should be protected by their legal rights. And no, that is not granted to only citizens. It is granted to all who stand on our soil (in theory).

What about the human rights of the country's citizens that can not get help because an illegal got there first and got the last of the aid?

Clearly, for you, the US citizen is somehow more important than the illegal immigrant; that the US citizen somehow deserves help more than the illegal immigrant.

There are those of us who believe that both people are equal, no matter how laws might be written or how you wish to label people. So yes, while it is a shame that there is not enough aid for all, it is an equal tragedy for the aid to run out for either person. One person is not better than another, and labels and laws can't change that.

So wouldn't it be better if an illegal immigrant would be able to work on the books and contribute towards society? I do not understand why we would desire to prevent them from contributing their taxes by creating laws that force them to work off the books.

What does it say that my closest chain supermarket has made it impossible for me to conduct business with the person employed behind the meat counter. I was incapable of ordering a specific cut of meat cut to my specification since the person behind the counter could not understand; "I'd like two pounds of sirloin cut in 1/4" slices." It took nearly three minutes just to get any kind of communication across and although I did get my meat, since I was able to point, I do not believe I was well served. This is just wrong. Add to that I have not one clue before actual contact that there would be any difficulty!
Hey? Does that mean that this meat cutting job was an illegal job?

I agree; that was an aggravating experience for you; I also have had similar circumstances happen to me. But the blame is squarely on the shoulders of the supermarket, who obviously put a person in a position they were not qualified for and did not train properly. However it is most likely that this person was legally allowed to work in the US, if something like a grocery store hired them. So this person had every right to do a poor job at serving your meat to you. Of course that is terrible customer service, but that's all it was.

[Lion]

"the people who did come to US legally will be affected by this law" Please explain how this is so??

Asking anyone for papers to prove they are American just seems like a huge step backwards. I doubt that whites will be affected by this at all compared to ethnic minorities. Do I think a cop is going to ask for a John Smith to prove he's American? I doubt it. I think he'll be more inclined to ask a Jose Hernandez though.

[Stealth694]

Good Point Lion:

But cops are pretty careful, about Profiling Charges, they can be filed by anyone, and then its days in and out of court ect. Most cops just don't want to take the time for a frivolus lawsuit.

But if they can prove they had a reason thats a different story.

[Miamhail]

Once again - where is the profiling? As it stood before the law, anytime a law enforcement agent had contact with a person during the course of lawful contact, he or she asked for a form of ID. This is to ensure the person they are dealing with is really the person they said they were. If they can't provide identification of some sort, they are asked a series of questions designed to gather enough information to find them in an interstate system. If they can't be found in the system, they are taken to a station to fingerprint. This was in effect before the law. The only difference with the new law is if at that time, there is sufficient reason to think they may be an undocumented alien, they are turned over to ICE. The process does not change with the new law. It's business like usual.

[DuncanONeil]

So sorry, Duncan! You hadn't said anything for awhile, so I thought you were gone. Bad assumption on my part.

Well there was a short involuntary vacation in there!

Well of course it's a matter of heart. I have both a heart and a mind 100% of the time; I can't just shut off one or the other. Neither can anyone, so don't pretend your heart doesn't affect how you think.

I would never suggest that the "heart" has no place in the thought process. However, the nature of life requires hard decisions. Sometimes those decisions can appear heartless.

While logic has it's place, so do emotions, and you need both reasoning and emotions to make good decisions.

As I said life requires hard decisions. In this issue there are such to be made. Some would argue, as you might, that people in Mexico need help. Should that not be the job of Mexico? Does allowing Mexico to, essentially, send their "problem" people to the US provide them the help they need? Or is Mexico pawning the problem off on someone else? You correct in an aspect of this, that reason and heart are needed. But heart alone is a poor way to make decisions. Heart requires that all be aided. But in a system of limited resources that is not possible. Nearly everyone understands triage. Triage only works under the rules of logic and thereby aids the heart in assisting the most.

[quote] Do you really believe that human rights trump legal rights?

Not at all. There isn't a person anywhere who can stop being human for a moment; so therefore, human rights always apply, and in this country we believe that a person's human rights should be protected by their legal rights. And no, that is not granted to only citizens. It is granted to all who stand on our soil (in theory).

So you do believe that "human rights" trump "legal rights" (human rights always apply). Yes human rights are protected by legal rights. But actually not all legal rights apply equally, some apply only to categories of people.

Clearly, for you, the US citizen is somehow more important than the illegal immigrant; that the US citizen somehow deserves help more than the illegal immigrant.

More important is a hard way to express this. All people are important. But in the issue here, Government services, there is an inherent priority. The Constitution is the governing document of Congress. As law the Constitution is different than all others. It attains to the People of the United States and our Posterity. As such its, and that of Congress, duty is to the people of the United States. Therefore it is not improper to suggest that first priority for service of the US go to citizens.
The US does not stint in providing assistance to those not citizens of the US. In fact the US puts a huge sum into aiding other countries, twice that of the country in second. It is not so high in terms of percent of Gross National Income that "honor" is held by Sweden at 1.12%. Interestingly enough while the percent of income we contribute is 18% of Sweden their dollars is 18% of ours! That really means nothing I just find it interesting.
I guess it really boils down to not that the US citizen deserves help more but that in the US they should have priority.

There are those of us who believe that both people are equal, no matter how laws might be written or how you wish to label people. So yes, while it is a shame that there is not enough aid for all, it is an equal tragedy for the aid to run out for either person. One person is not better than another, and labels and laws can't change that.

Do you contribute to charity? Do you give to every charity that "comes to your door"? Or do you choose among the charities due to limited resources? That is another example of that hard decision matrix. We all do it all the time!
As for labeling people, we are human, it is our nature. Part of the desire for order. We classify everything; the heat, cold, weather, rain, snow (eskimos have as many as 20 words for snow), animals (squirrels are cute, rats ugly) even when they are essentially the same. The same applies to people; short, tall, thin, thick, cute, not, beautiful, hunk, not, yellow, red, white, brown, dark, light, freckled. In spite of all that 98% of us all agree on one thing they are people. Also that we will help them if they need it and if we can. But to suggest that we MUST just because they decide to camp out in our back yard is neither charity nor appropriate.

So wouldn't it be better if an illegal immigrant would be able to work on the books and contribute towards society? I do not understand why we would desire to prevent them from contributing their taxes by creating laws that force them to work off the books.

We do not create laws "that force them to work off the books.". The laws are to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," and by extension immigration. These people choose to ignore these rules and laws and put themselves in a position where they must continue to break the laws on a daily basis.

I agree; that was an aggravating experience for you; I also have had similar circumstances happen to me. But the blame is squarely on the shoulders of the supermarket, who obviously put a person in a position they were not qualified for and did not train properly. However it is most likely that this person was legally allowed to work in the US, if something like a grocery store hired them. So this person had every right to do a poor job at serving your meat to you. Of course that is terrible customer service, but that's all it was.

You miss the point! And further you assume based on the business that the person is legal. The customer service issue is the least of my worries, I can fix that, that is on the store. Someone that can not talk to the customer being hired is on the store. The store should not have to train an employee to speak English! Especially in this case! Meat cutter is not one of those "won't do" jobs, usually union as well.

[DuncanONeil]

I do not believe you understood my question.
How is it a step backwards to ask people for identification. This happens to everyone constantly. To single out a segment of society and exempt them from this process is itself discriminatory.
No one is asking people to prove that they are an American, but that are legally in the country. We assume this of citizens and require it by law for non-citizens.
Why is it bad to ask people to comply with the law?

Completely outside the purview of the original question how is it bad to enforce immigration law?

Asking anyone for papers to prove they are American just seems like a huge step backwards. I doubt that whites will be affected by this at all compared to ethnic minorities. Do I think a cop is going to ask for a John Smith to prove he's American? I doubt it. I think he'll be more inclined to ask a Jose Hernandez though.

[DuncanONeil]

I don't think his "point" is the laest bit good.
In fact I do not even think it is a point.

Good Point Lion:

But cops are pretty careful, about Profiling Charges, they can be filed by anyone, and then its days in and out of court ect. Most cops just don't want to take the time for a frivolus lawsuit.

But if they can prove they had a reason thats a different story.

[DuncanONeil]

Pretty close!
But the transfer to ICE is not immediate. There are legal ramifications that exist in the law with regards to the state of AZ.
But yes the ultimate disposition of a person identified by ICE as an illegal would be transfer to the control of ICE.
But we all know how good a job ICE does now!

Once again - where is the profiling? As it stood before the law, anytime a law enforcement agent had contact with a person during the course of lawful contact, he or she asked for a form of ID. This is to ensure the person they are dealing with is really the person they said they were. If they can't provide identification of some sort, they are asked a series of questions designed to gather enough information to find them in an interstate system. If they can't be found in the system, they are taken to a station to fingerprint. This was in effect before the law. The only difference with the new law is if at that time, there is sufficient reason to think they may be an undocumented alien, they are turned over to ICE. The process does not change with the new law. It's business like usual.

[Jennifer Williams]

As I said life requires hard decisions. In this issue there are such to be made. Some would argue, as you might, that people in Mexico need help. Should that not be the job of Mexico?

Of course it should be the job of Mexico, however, Mexico is not doing it's job. And some might be inclined to say "so what, that's not our business." Except it has made itself our business, the problems there have affected us in so many different ways.

Laws and strategies towards keeping people out (like building a fence along the border) or deporting them once they come in aren't going to help because those types of solutions only treat the symptoms of the problem, not the cause(s). No matter how hard we try to shut our border up, as long as people in Mexico are desperate, they will find ways in.

If our resources are so precious, then why are we spending them on fighting a losing battle like that? Why not direct our resources towards trying to solve the root(s) of the problem? Is it our business? Yes; it has made itself so. We can't possibly achieve anything with the attitude "Mexico is none of our business." They're right next door. Their problems are our problems, their people affect our people, every day, in regular life.

If your neighbor's house was burning and you knew they were inside, would you not seek out help for them? Or would you say "Well, that's his fault for not installing proper smoke detectors; it's none of my buisness how he wants to keep his house."

Are we not, on a human level, all responsible for each other? And does not humanity, as a whole, benefit when we help each other in times of need?

Does allowing Mexico to, essentially, send their "problem" people to the US provide them the help they need?

Mexico is not sending us their "problem" people; the people coming here are families; men and women seeking to work in order to make a living. They're here looking for a job. If there had been a job in their home town, do you not think they would prefer that? So if Mexico does not create jobs for it's own people, then what do we do? If there is no job for a man in Mexico, and you send him back there, what do you think will happen? People go where work is. Of course he will come back here, and he will continue to do so until there is a job for him back at home.

Or is Mexico pawning the problem off on someone else?

Of course they are. So now you have the "it's not my problem" situation. If it's not their problem (because they don't care) and it's not our problem, then it's no one's problem and no one fixes it.

You correct in an aspect of this, that reason and heart are needed. But heart alone is a poor way to make decisions. Heart requires that all be aided. But in a system of limited resources that is not possible. Nearly everyone understands triage. Triage only works under the rules of logic and thereby aids the heart in assisting the most.

Except in triage, the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

So by that logic, whoever is poorer should get the aid, not whoever is more legal (and I am not stating that I think the illegal immigrant will be the poorer person in every case. I am aware that some of them are far better off than some of our own citizens; and in that case again, the poorer person should get the aid first.)

[MMI]

I suspect Mexico is doing its best for its people. I doubt deliberately exports its population as a way of dealing with poverty and such.

But if we accept the argument that it is the job of the Mexican government to look after its people, is it not, then, the job of nations to look after Mexico (and other poor countries) sufficiently well that Mexicans will not want to emigrate?

... the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

OMG, I nearly came!

I expect the "Me First" brigade will quibble and wriggle and scribble their rebuttals, but that is really the final word concerning the provision of aid for immigrants.

[Thorne]

If your neighbor's house was burning and you knew they were inside, would you not seek out help for them? Or would you say "Well, that's his fault for not installing proper smoke detectors; it's none of my buisness how he wants to keep his house."

But what are you supposed to do when you offer your neighbor help and he refuses it? And not only refuses it, but keeps tossing burning embers towards your house?

Are we not, on a human level, all responsible for each other? And does not humanity, as a whole, benefit when we help each other in times of need?

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

Mexico is not sending us their "problem" people;

You think not?
A quote from that article: "The latest flap is about a booklet produced by the Mexican government that is targeted at those Mexicans that may be considering crossing the border illegally. Some radical sites are even suggesting "It is a guide on how to enter the US illegally. It is an act of war. It is part of a long-term plan to flood the US, particularly California and the Southwest, with illegal Mexicans...". [emphasis mine]

Except in triage, the person who needs it the most is the person who gets the aid, not the person who is following the rules better.

Except that sometimes you have to let some patients die in order to save others because you don't have the resources for all.

So by that logic, whoever is poorer should get the aid, not whoever is more legal

The greatest number who can be saved with the resources at hand should get the aid. Giving everything to a few desperate cases only pushes those less desperate into a more desperate position. Spreading the resources to as many as possible, though, will lift many out of desperation, while leaving a relative few in a more desperate situation. That's triage: saving as many as possible with what you have.

[Thorne]

I suspect Mexico is doing its best for its people. I doubt deliberately exports its population as a way of dealing with poverty and such.

Somehow I doubt this. The Mexican government is doing what's best for itself, and the politicians: getting rid of the really poor without having to spend any resources on them.

But if we accept the argument that it is the job of the Mexican government to look after its people, is it not, then, the job of nations to look after Mexico (and other poor countries) sufficiently well that Mexicans will not want to emigrate?

And again I say: does that mean that the US should annex Mexico? I don't think the Mexican government would like that.

I expect the "Me First" brigade will quibble

Just a minor quibble, that's all.

[Miamhail]

As for exporting the population - remittance is Mexico's 3rd largest Gross National Product. It's well over 3 bn a quarter and follows only oil export at 5 bn and Assembly for export at 4.5 bn per quarter. So that is exactly what the Mexican government does. That's all money made here in the U.S. but spent in a foreign country. Remittance is heavily relied on by the Mexican Government and strongly dependent on undocumented workers in the U.S.

[MMI]

But what are you supposed to do when you offer your neighbor help and he refuses it? And not only refuses it, but keeps tossing burning embers towards your house?

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

You think not?

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

A quote from that article: "The latest flap is about a booklet produced by the Mexican government that is targeted at those Mexicans that may be considering crossing the border illegally. Some radical sites are even suggesting "It is a guide on how to enter the US illegally. It is an act of war. It is part of a long-term plan to flood the US, particularly California and the Southwest, with illegal Mexicans...". [emphasis mine

Interesting that those radical sites talk of acts of war. One wonders if that justifies the deaths that the Mexican Government seeks to help its nationals avoid. I realise that in opposing right-wing extremists one also opposes the racist killers among them, but I didn't realise that the murders carried out by this group had reached such numbers that the Mexican Government had to take steps to warn people of the risks they faced, even if it cannot stop them.

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

Except that sometimes you have to let some patients die in order to save others because you don't have the resources for all.

No-one would disagree: sometimes you have to make a brutal choice, whatever side of the argument you support.

The greatest number who can be saved with the resources at hand should get the aid. Giving everything to a few desperate cases only pushes those less desperate into a more desperate position. Spreading the resources to as many as possible, though, will lift many out of desperation, while leaving a relative few in a more desperate situation. That's triage: saving as many as possible with what you have.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest. It does make a kind of sense, I have to admit.

Non-sense.

[TantricSoul]

I'de like to thank Thorne and Jennifer for their input on this thread ... its a great treat to witness such a sharp mind and such a deep heart have a discussion on an issue such as this.

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick and more in line with this:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America has been billed as the "land of opportunity" outside its borders for many decades now ... it is shameful that opportunity is limited to a few hundred thousand, of those that yearn to breathe free, a year.

[Thorne]

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

No, the Mexican government is the pyromaniac. The illegals are the burning embers.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

We accept responsibility for those who are us. Family, tribe (city), clan (state), country, in that order. But in this case that means legal citizens, regardless of race or country of origin. That includes, among others, legal Latinos.

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

I'd like to see you justify that statement, with facts.

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

Gee, why does that not surprise me? Well then, how about this one? (Scroll down to International Controversies.) Or this one!

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

I guess it would be more accurate to say that the Mexican government is securing a lucrative source of income, apparently the second largest source in the country: the money sent back by the illegals.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest.

I'm not sure I understand this.

[Thorne]

My opinion ... we do need to enforce the laws ... and we desperately need to change the law so that immigration to the states is easy, quick

I have no problem with the idea of changing the law, even to the point of allowing more immigrants, legally, into the country. But until those laws are changed, I think we have to enforce the laws as they exist today. If you believe the laws are bad you fight them in the courts, or in the Congress. You don't simply ignore them.

[Jennifer Williams]

We accept responsibility for those who are us. Family, tribe (city), clan (state), country, in that order. But in this case that means legal citizens, regardless of race or country of origin. That includes, among others, legal Latinos.

This, I believe, is the core of where we differ.

We all are "us". There is no "they." Family? The human race. Anyone and everyone. What if my sister tomorrow married a guy from Mexico? Instant family. City? People move in/out of my city, my state, and my country every day, and that does not change their level of importance to me. Yes, of course I love my family. I just remind myself that any person I speak to is part of someone's family, and so therefore, equally as important as mine.

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

I have no logical argument for this. It just makes me plain sad. You have a right to feel differently than me. But if I suddenly found myself with enough food for the whole world and some way to distribute it, I would. I feel responsible for my fellow human beings everywhere, because what separates me from them? The pure random chance of where I was born, and nothing else. I could easily have been them; I could still easily become them. At any time I could become sick, or poor, or wronged, or alone. How dare I think myself more important or better than anyone else, simply because I was randomly dealt a better hand of cards than they were?

And yes, we are responsible for each other, because that is the root of civilization. Evolutionary-wise, does it make sense for the strong to protect the weak? No. In the animal world, they let the weak die, because they are a burden. Humans are different. We choose to bear the burden of the weak, because we believe in something better than that. We believe in civilization, in that even the weak have value, simply because they are one of us.

And we are all "one of us."

I have no problem with the idea of changing the law, even to the point of allowing more immigrants, legally, into the country. But until those laws are changed, I think we have to enforce the laws as they exist today. If you believe the laws are bad you fight them in the courts, or in the Congress. You don't simply ignore them.

On this, I would have to agree with, except where following the law would violate a person's human rights. Human rights always apply first, and our country believes that, which is why places like emergency rooms and food pantries aren't allowed to report illegal immigrants. Because getting them the food and medicine to carry on as living, healthy human beings is more important than the laws. Our own government knows this; which is why they are so hesitant to enforce inhumane acts, like deportation (also because it's a pointless waste of resources when the deported person is going to do everything they can to come right back, anyway).