This weeks hot topic: Immigrants

[Sand]

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.

 

I disagree, Tigger. Why should I trust someone who is willing and has broken the law? Why shouldn't I feel a bit of animosity and contempt for those who show no respect for the laws of my country? Don't get me wrong, I am all for immigration and cultural diversity, as long as no laws are broken. Yes, I also agree that the laws need to be changed and we due have a procedure to change our laws but until those laws are changed the one's we have now should be strictly enforced. Just because you don't like a law does not give you the right to break it without consequence.

[Tigranes]

I'm not saying you should trust them. I am saying animosity and distrust on the part of the other country. Even if you should hadn out to some illegal immigrants and deport others, I'm not saying you should then 'trust' those illegal immigrants... I mean sure, there's a degree of trust involved in handing out visas to them now, but that's based on their past history while in the USA; i.e. to an extent they have proven themselves. They're still illegal, sure, and if punishment to offenders was the highest priority in this issue then by all rights we should kick them all out. But my point is that this will simply create huge amounts of animosity and distrust on the part of the immigrants and their home countrymen, which will later cause a lot more problems, not to mention economic downfalls and all that.

 

Basically, everything you say about the law is fine. It's not wrong. But you can't be right on everything at the same time, so you need to prioritise sometimes what is more important, and in this case keeping the law is not the most important thing.

[Sand]

Again, I disagree. The law is important. They broke the law, therefore they should face the consequence and if they feel animosity towards us because they broke the law and we are enforcing our laws then to bad for them.

[Tigranes]

The animosity isn't limited to "too bad for them"; it has a direct consequence on the US.

 

But if you believe that no matter the consequences, the law is of the highest priority, then I suppose must agree to disagree: no problemo.

[Sand]

Hey, at least I don't believe we should shoot illegal immigrants on sight.

[Hurlshort]

You know, I was sitting through a leadership video today at work, and it was all about how everybody's goal should be to create an upwards spiral for all parties. Basically it was about not getting stuck in the philosophy of one winner and one loser, but finding alternatives that allow all parties to spiral upwards. This strikes me as the purpose of the law. We have laws to create a better society. It's not just about locking people up who break the law. That's why we have rehabilitation programs, probation, and many other measures. In that same vein, it strikes me as a lot more productive for everyone if we create a system where these immigrants don't need to break the law. Who is benefiting from this punishment? You personally? Because that's really ignoring what is best for all parties involved.

 

I'm just saying Sand, your attitude doesn't only create a downward spiral for those illegal immigrants, it hinders the entire forward movement of both the US and Mexican societies. It's much more effective to lift each other up.

[Sand]

You either treat all people the same or you discriminate or give favor to one group over another. The law is there for everyone to obey, to treat everyone equally. You can't have one law okay to break then have another law not okay to break. You can't just pick and choose which law to obey and which law not to obey. That is not how it works.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

It's quite simple. Sand has, for reasons beyond me, failed to grasp the concept of second order dynamics. We've been through this on innumerable occasions. He's essentially against every advance we've made in human affairs since the mid 1800s, with the exception of the end of colonialism. I don't know why this makes me so annoyed, since it's patently suboptimal for all concerned.

 

Sand, question: Have you ever come across the business of system dynamics?

 

I ask because there's no shortage of computing power at your end, it's just like you're doing everything on an amiga emulator.

[Sand]

How am I against the advancement we have made since the 1800's? That doesn't make any sense. I am all for changing the laws of our country to make things more equitable for immigrants and all for implementing a guest worker system that s fair to both the foreign employee and employer. I am just against amnesty for those who have broken our current laws.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

How am I against the advancement we have made since the 1800's? That doesn't make any sense. I am all for changing the laws of our country to make things more equitable for immigrants and all for implementing a guest worker system that s fair to both the foreign employee and employer. I am just against amnesty for those who have broken our current laws.

 

But the impact of your policy will be the sabotage of your strategic allies, and markets for your goods, never mind the domestic economic and human fallout. Your ignoring advances made this century stems from your unwilllingness to acknowledge that no nation is an island. We are all inextricably interconnected, and recognising that fact is not just essential but provokes a strategic emphasis on cooperation and mutual assistance (as Hurlshot said).

[Sand]

But the impact of your policy will be the sabotage of your strategic allies, and markets for your goods, never mind the domestic economic and human fallout. Your ignoring advances made this century stems from your unwilllingness to acknowledge that no nation is an island. We are all inextricably interconnected, and recognising that fact is not just essential but provokes a strategic emphasis on cooperation and mutual assistance (as Hurlshot said).

 

And I would love to do that... without giving amnesty to those who have broken our laws. We need to change our laws that it allows citizens from Mexico, Phillipines, Africa, or wherever an easier time to immigrate into our country, introduce a guest worker program for migrant and seasonal workers to come in to work. I know that no nation is an island and I am very much accepting legal immigrants into our country and make things easier for legal immigrants to come and live in the US. I am very much would love to see us expand the number of legal immigrants that can come into our nation, skilled or unskilled.

 

I am just against giving amnesty to illegal immigrants and illegal immigration as a whole. I am against giving amnesty to those who do not respect our laws.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Okay, and I am arguing that given a finite law enforcement capability the offence of illegally being resident should be lower on the list than you are suggesting. An amnesty allows thejustice system to draw a line under existing offences for those willing to now play ball. Which in turn gives moral and practical impetus to a much harsher crackdown subsequently. Gun amnesties are a clasic example of this, which work worldwide.

 

EDIT: In this case, for example

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6956322.stm

 

Where an immigrant died due to panicking while selling bootleg DVDs I have no sympathy. The compound nature of the crime while not deserving the death sentence should certainly result in immediate expulsion. I also believe that such expulsion should carry registry on a DNA database and permanent future exclusion.

[Sand]

I disagree. Giving amnesty to criminals, regardless of severity of the crime, will only encourage continued criminal behavior.

[Tigranes]

Giving amnesty to criminals, regardless of severity of the crime, will only encourage continued criminal behavior.

 

While merciless execution of the law, whatever it may be at the time, will always bring down rate of criminal behaviour and is benefitial to society...?

[Hurlshort]

"How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!?"

[Walsingham]

I'm curious to know if Sando has always received just punishment for every law he's ever broken.

[mainstreet]

I disagree. Giving amnesty to criminals, regardless of severity of the crime, will only encourage continued criminal behavior.

 

Hypothetical Scenario:

I take some nails out of my friend's tool box without asking figuring it wouldn't be a problem. If he later notices them missing, do I deserve to go to prison for theft (because, technically, that is what I did)?

 

Conclusion:

Is it really necessary to punish for EVERY law broken?

 

 

(While I recognize that my post doesn't reflect the issue, it does rebut your position...)

[Sand]

I'm curious to know if Sando has always received just punishment for every law he's ever broken.

I, in my mind, believe that I have recieved just punishment for every law I have been caught breaking. Then again I very rarely have the desire or need to break any laws. Let the punishment fit the crime. For mainstreet's example, if your friend wished to press charges it would be a misdemeaner due to the value of the items stolen. The punishment may not require you to go to jail but may gain a fine.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Sand

[Hurlshort]

I'm curious to know if Sando has always received just punishment for every law he's ever broken.

I, in my mind, believe that I have recieved just punishment for every law I have been caught breaking. Then again I very rarely have the desire or need to break any laws. Let the punishment fit the crime. For mainstreet's example, if your friend wished to press charges it would be a misdemeaner due to the value of the items stolen. The punishment may not require you to go to jail but may gain a fine.

 

It's interesting you bring up the concept of pressing charges. Currently, the only time illegal immigration charges are leveled is when the immigrant has already been convicted of another crime. So if there are no district attorneys willing to prosecute an illegal alien simply for being present in the country, have they really committed a crime?

Edited August 23, 2007 by Hurlshot

[Sand]

If they aren't willing to persecute then they aren't doing their job.

[taks]

So if there are no district attorneys willing to prosecute an illegal alien simply for being present in the country, have they really committed a crime?

no part in the definition of a crime requires prosecution. if you violate a law, even one as innocuous as jay-walking, you have committed a crime.

 

taks

[Sand]

Yeppers.

[Walsingham]

Your position thus far has been an iron insistence that society must have total obedience to the law. If that really is your position then I suggest it is disonest to avoid punishment for breaking the law. Have you any intentio of going in and cofessing? And have you any intention to insist on punihsment or you will try to have the officers who will interview you in goggle-eyed astonishment sacked?

[Sand]

Walsh, this isn't about me. This thread is about illegal immigrants. Stay on topic, Mr. Moderator.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Au contraire, Doctor. this topic is more particularly about illegal immigration, and lately your attitude to law enforcement. You allege that irrespective of any other considerations breaking the law should be punished. If you are unwilling to apply the rule to yourself then surely the circumstances can change the way the law is applied.