Imigration

[DuncanONeil]

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

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

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

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

Agreed ... but a bad law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DuncanONeil]

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

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

[Thorne]

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

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

[DuncanONeil]

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.

[DuncanONeil]

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

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

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

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

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

[MMI]

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

[Jennifer Williams]

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

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

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

[Thorne]

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

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

[Jennifer Williams]

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

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

[DuncanONeil]

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.

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

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

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

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

[Thorne]

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.

You don't have to, my friend. I dispense it for free. If you are paying for it then someone is ripping you off.

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.)

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.

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.

[Jennifer Williams]

Leo9 hit the nail on the head:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Thorne]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's not doing too well, either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jennifer Williams]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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!

[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?

[MMI]

Perhaps you're forgetting the war of 1812? The one that ended in 1814?

That's the war I suggested you speak to a Canadian about, to find out who won.

As between US and Great Britain, if you count territorial gains, the 1812 war was a no-score draw (a soccer term), if you count dead bodies, the US lost. If you count individual battles ... I'll let someone else work that out.

"In the end we ask who won and who lost the War of 1812. The clear loser in this conflict without any doubt is the Native People of North America. In the summer of 1815, the United States signed fifteen treaties with the tribes, guaranteeing their status as of 1811. But it did not return an acre of land. The dream of the Indian state never came true.

If any one could claim victory it was Canada. The United States declared war on Great Britain and set out to make Canada states in the union. Ten American armies crossed into Canada and all were driven out."

http://www.warof1812.ca/summary.html

Shortly before the British got their butts handed to them at New Orleans? They even wrote a song about it!

OK, you won a battle. Good for you. I know it was so important for America, but, frankly, it was a minor skirmish for us. Did you ever hear of Napoleon ... the French guy? That's who we were really worried about at the time.

I know the song ... I could even sing it while strumming a guitar (Lonnie Donegan's version). I also enjoyed singing "Yankee Doodle".

Only until the British surrendered.

It was always treachery. You have chosen to raise these men to the status of heros, and to eulogise about their exploits, but they were far from noble in reality.

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

Might is always right huh? In that case Stalin was an angel and the Taliban should be running Afghanistan.

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?

No, that is a completely incorrect inference to draw. I am saying that it isn't a bad thing to ignore that particular law. If might be a land grab, but I see it more like trespass by tortfeasors.

It certainly doesn't make them traitors: they aren't Americans, are they?

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?

Any law that denies or suppresses a human right is a bad law. And anyone who regards illegal immigrants as "lazy johnny-come-latelys" should really take a long hard look at himself.

[DuncanONeil]

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

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

Well said and eloquently expressed, Thorne.

I don't buy a word of it.

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

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

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

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

[Jennifer Williams]

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

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

[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.

[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]

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.)

[Stealth694]

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

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

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

[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!

[denuseri]

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