This weeks hot topic: Immigrants

[Walsingham]

IN fairness to Sand, he's (in my opinion) quite right to suggest that laws that need to be broken shouldn't be on the books.

 

Except I had a friend just point out that there are innumerable occasions on which it is vital to have the law, but not always vital to implement it. A fact I have recognised many times.

 

*sigh*

[Cantousent]

I don't believe our immigration laws are either unjust or harsh. However, if we were sending these people back to certain death (such as by summary execution) then it would be a different matter.

 

There are some laws that are unjust. We need only look to nazi Germany to find examples. In this respect, I agree whole heartedly with Sand. If the moral compulsion to break a law is so great that government does not enforce the law, then the law should not exist. This is also true of laws that are not practical to enforce.

 

On the other hand, if the law is not unjust (note that this falls short of saying that the law is just) then we should support and enforce it.

[Hurlshort]

I'm not saying I have a problem with the law or that I think illegal immigration is a-ok. I'm saying our current policies don't serve our countries need for these workers. Because the reward for these workers to enter our country illegally outweighs the risk, you have a gigantic issue that is unenforceable. However, if you create a program that allows these workers to enter legally, then the law becomes easier to enforce. Trying to up the risk factor, which is our current policy, doesn't suit our economy in any way, shape, or form. It also costs a ton.

 

So the law doesn't need to be changed, but it won't be effective until they create a decent work visa program.

[Walsingham]

Gotcha. Well I for one agree with you.

[Sand]

I do think we need stricter and harsher laws, and enforce them on illegals, but also a workable visa program that makes it easier for legal immigration to happen. I am, however, against giving amnesty to those already in this country who are breaking our laws.

Edited August 18, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

You're hitting the tin drum again. *sigh*

 

Your position is both impractical and inhumane. It's impractical because you haven't the space in your penal system. It's inhumane because these are not really criminals, but persons who have committed a crime. There is a difference. Moreover, many now have children born in your country. Simply turfing out five-fifteen million people? Sure. Genius. Just to prove a point of abstract justice.

[Sand]

You're hitting the tin drum again. *sigh*

 

Your position is both impractical and inhumane. It's impractical because you haven't the space in your penal system. It's inhumane because these are not really criminals, but persons who have committed a crime. There is a difference. Moreover, many now have children born in your country. Simply turfing out five-fifteen million people? Sure. Genius. Just to prove a point of abstract justice.

 

Impractical? Just deport them to their nation of origin, unless they compound the crime with other criminal acts. Also if you break the law, you are a criminal. Plain and simple. Those who have children have a choice, take their children with them or leave them behind. They broke the law, there need to be consequences otherwise we just encourage more criminal acts.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Sand, you're talking about millions of people! Literally millions! Yet again you display a total lack of connection with the real world. Ignoring the compassionate grounds for permitting many to stay, the return of millions of persons without jobs homes or futures would lead to the destabilisation of many countries that are strategic allies of the United States. Not to mention turning those self-same millions and their families into instant enemies.

 

Policies that have no connection to reality do not deserve the name.

[Sand]

So we should give these people, these people who have no respect for our laws, amnesty?!?!? That is stupid. It will not solve the problem and the problem is illegal immigrants.

 

Why don't we give all the criminals amnesty! Free up all the prisons! We can eliminate crime by making everything legal! That is basically what you are saying. Those who break our laws should not be punished.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Sand

[Gfted1]

^Hehe, thats exactly Wals solution to a frighting amount of social problems.

[Sand]

And they never solve anything anyway. Yes, the laws need to be changed and I will support that change, but I will never support giving amnesty to criminals and that is exactly what illegal immigrants are.

[Tale]

Innocent until proven guilty, n'est-ce pas?

[Sand]

Sure, but how many illegal immigrants have been found innocent of breaking immigration laws and not deported? I don't think there are many.

[Gfted1]

In your face illegal immigration!

 

For some reason, that whole hiding out in a church thig was pissing me off.

[Tale]

Maybe they should have deported the son, too. Would that have made her happy?

[Walsingham]

I'm saying that we can't fight everything we want to. And in fact if you approached this as an exercise in government and not as a philosophy class you'd see what you're saying is nonsense. Simply waving your arms about and saying I want to free everyone doesn't answer my points.

 

Imagine for a moment that we were talking not about crime but about disease, and ignore the human aspect. We have a limited stockpile of anti-virals which we can use. I am suggesting that the majority of illegal imigrants are like athlete's foot*. You're saying that because it's a disease we have to immediately apply everything in our arsenal to get rid of it. I'm saying we can live with it, and the anti-virals are better spent elsewhere. I'm not saying it is OK. I'm prioritising.

 

Answer the questions:

 

1. Do you agree that immediate return would result in millions of dispossessed individuals turning up in Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines and so on?

2. Do you also agree that those persons would stop sending money home to extended families?

3. What do you suppose the net impact of those two factors will be on the countries receiving them?

 

The net impact in my opinion will be the sudden removal of workers from your own economy, coupled with body blows to countries you are currently on good terms with.

 

I have an alternative solution to your draconian short-sightedness if you care to hear it, and it isn't "Let's run around as nude anarchists!"

 

 

*Which is a fungus, I know, but you get the idea.

 

PS I know I've changed my position on this, but that's WHY we debate things, to better understand them.

[Sand]

1. Do you agree that immediate return would result in millions of dispossessed individuals turning up in Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines and so on?

 

Yes.

 

2. Do you also agree that those persons would stop sending money home to extended families?

 

Yes.

 

3. What do you suppose the net impact of those two factors will be on the countries receiving them?

 

I don't care. Let those countries deal with their problems and let us deal with ours. They are sovereign nations. I think they are grown up enough to take care of their own.

 

I am certain in the short run things will be tough on both sides of the border but in the long run the US will be stronger, and coupled with a worker immigration system that actually works it will yield better long term results than giving amnesty.

 

Also, if your solution includes amnesty to criminals, which illegal immigrants are, then I don't care. I am absolutely and totally against amnesty. My position on that will not ever change.

Edited August 20, 2007 by Sand

[Tigranes]

Actually, it's in the *long run* that it would harm the US, not the short or medium term.

 

Why do you think the US constantly meddles in other nations' affairs? Because what happens to other nations and the world at large has a direct effect on US culture, economy, politics, military and future. It isn't good for the US to have, say, Mexico and other nations collapse into poverty: it brings instability and spite and hatred, it effects the economy adversely - leaving out entirely the moral argument that seems to be the masquerade, it's impractical to just say "they can do whatever, we'll do whatever."

 

That said, I've already suggested and supported a revamp of the system to accept more workers legally and stratify the system. It's probably more benefitial for the U.S. to do that, then do a crackdown on all illegal immigrants; those who fit the criteria are accepted,but those who do not are unforgivingly deported. There's no point being an armchair philosopher and crying they should all be kicked out.

[Sand]

That is still giving amnesty to criminals, Tigger, and that is unacceptable.

[theslug]

Actually, it's in the *long run* that it would harm the US, not the short or medium term.

 

Why do you think the US constantly meddles in other nations' affairs? Because what happens to other nations and the world at large has a direct effect on US culture, economy, politics, military and future. It isn't good for the US to have, say, Mexico and other nations collapse into poverty: it brings instability and spite and hatred, it effects the economy adversely - leaving out entirely the moral argument that seems to be the masquerade, it's impractical to just say "they can do whatever, we'll do whatever."

 

That said, I've already suggested and supported a revamp of the system to accept more workers legally and stratify the system. It's probably more benefitial for the U.S. to do that, then do a crackdown on all illegal immigrants; those who fit the criteria are accepted,but those who do not are unforgivingly deported. There's no point being an armchair philosopher and crying they should all be kicked out.

The vast majority of Mexico and probably central America is already in poverty.

[Tigranes]

That is still giving amnesty to criminals, Tigger, and that is unacceptable.

 

It is important to punish criminals. But is it more important than anything else?

[Sand]

It is important to punish criminals. But is it more important than anything else?

 

If you give amnesty to those who break the law you only encourage others to continue to break the law.

[Tigranes]

Firstly, my point wasn't that giving amnesty to lawbreakers was good; my point was that sometimes there are more important things at issue than philosophically meting out judgment to all lawbreakers.

 

Secondly, animosity and distrust, however irrational it may be and however right the source may be, can cause a lot more problems than amnesty to lawbreakers in a specific case can.

[thepixiesrock]

Hades is probably the biggest cartoon caricacture on these forums. I blame it on all these years of him playing video games and PnP.

[Hurlshort]

Actually, it's in the *long run* that it would harm the US, not the short or medium term.

 

Why do you think the US constantly meddles in other nations' affairs? Because what happens to other nations and the world at large has a direct effect on US culture, economy, politics, military and future. It isn't good for the US to have, say, Mexico and other nations collapse into poverty: it brings instability and spite and hatred, it effects the economy adversely - leaving out entirely the moral argument that seems to be the masquerade, it's impractical to just say "they can do whatever, we'll do whatever."

 

That said, I've already suggested and supported a revamp of the system to accept more workers legally and stratify the system. It's probably more benefitial for the U.S. to do that, then do a crackdown on all illegal immigrants; those who fit the criteria are accepted,but those who do not are unforgivingly deported. There's no point being an armchair philosopher and crying they should all be kicked out.

The vast majority of Mexico and probably central America is already in poverty.

 

That's really missing the entire point. Are you saying that, because they are already in bad shape, it's no big deal to make things even worse?