Federal Government To Round Up Illegal Immigrants

[orange]

Originally posted by faded glory
wooohoo!!

Sianora (sp?) Suckers

Want in? Pay taxes and learn the language!

Speaking English is not a requirement for living in the United States. Nor should it be.

[Ramo]

A fine because they did do something illegal and that should be discouraged

Why? If the law is flawed, why should breaking the law be discouraged?

if they do crimes in the US and have not immegrated here, then I see no reason to not kick them out

What's the reason to kick them out? Some of the "criminals" have already served their sentences, and others have committed misdimeanors.

Why not kick all criminals out even if they are legal residents?

I am pro immegration because it is smart, not because it is 'right'

Does this apply to the rest of your philosphical system? Would you committ murder if it proved advantageous to do so?

From the people wwho are citizens and set up the government (which is not those who enterd illegally)

And why do these citizens have the right to control the borders of their state?

Does the state also have the right to murder those who disagree with it, if the voters consent?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


Why? If the law is flawed, why should breaking the law be discouraged?



What's the reason to kick them out? Some of the "criminals" have already served their sentences, and others have committed misdimeanors.

Why not kick all criminals out even if they are legal residents?



Does this apply to the rest of your philosphical system? Would you committ murder if it proved advantageous to do so?



And why do these citizens have the right to control the borders of their state?

Does the state also have the right to murder those who disagree with it, if the voters consent?

The law is not flawed, it is just not the best for the state.

It is not immoral to obey the law, therefore it is moral to obey the law and immoral to disobey.

Since they are here illigally I do not see any reason to put up with them, if they were here legally, then the state would owe them.

No, I think that I have posted enough about my philosphy (but maybe not recently) for you to know better. I do not view immigration as morally right or wrong.

Citizens have the right to control the borders of their state because it is theirs (they own it).

It would be like me going over to your house and taking all your stuff. That is like saying citizens do not have the right to control borders.

The state does have the right to kill people, not to murder.

There is a difference.

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

The law is not flawed, it is just not the best for the state.

What does that mean?

It is not immoral to obey the law, therefore it is moral to obey the law

Why?

I do not view immigration as morally right or wrong.

I view coercion as morally wrong, and immigration restrictions are forms of coercion.

Citizens have the right to control the borders of their state because it is theirs (they own it).

The citizens collectively own everything in the country? Gee, I didn't know we're living in the Soviet Union.

It would be like me going over to your house and taking all your stuff. That is like saying citizens do not have the right to control borders.

That's an absurd analogy. You're saying that you allowing certain people into your house is like "me going over to your house and taking all your stuff."

The state does have the right to kill people, not to murder.

There is a difference.

So you're saying that the state has the right to kill whomever disagrees with it, then?

Again where do these rights come from? Who says they exist? All these assertions concerning the rights of states seems to resurrect the "Divine Rights of Kings."

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


What does that mean?



Why?



I view coercion as morally wrong, and immigration restrictions are forms of coercion.



The citizens collectively own everything in the country? Gee, I didn't know we're living in the Soviet Union.

It would be like me going over to your house and taking all your stuff. That is like saying citizens do not have the right to control borders.

That's an absurd analogy. You're saying that you allowing certain people into my house is like "me going over to your house and taking all your stuff."



So you're saying that the state has the right to kill whomever disagrees with it, then?

Again where do these rights come from? Who says they exist? All these assertions concerning the rights of states seems to resurrect the "Divine Rights of Kings." [/QUOTE]

the state gets its rights as a group organism created by it's citizens

yes, I am a communist by some diffinition (think that the state is owned by its citizens, would prefer that the state controlled the production, ect.)

space = stuff

will reply more later, laundery

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

the state gets its rights as a group organism created by it's citizens

We're getting into circular definitions, here. Where does this group organism thing get its rights?

space = stuff

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


We're getting into circular definitions, here. Where does this group organism thing get its rights?

as a living organism it has the right to exist

to exist it may protect itself (this means protecting it's parts (ie it's citizens))

if it does not protect itself (by not taking care of it's citizens), then it loses it's right to exist and the parts my form another organism

with my statement I was maintaining that the space that the organism exists on is the property of the organism, for use in protecting it's parts (ie taking care of it's citizens), and by moving in on that space and taking it without joining the organism, the organism is lest able to protect itself and therefore less able to exist and so it is wrong (moraaly)

Jon Miller

[Dr Strangelove]

IIRC at one time (during the Reagan administration I think) the US tried to make deportation of undocumented aliens who had committed crimes mandatory. Actually I wasn't aware that the law had been changed.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
IIRC at one time (during the Reagan administration I think) the US tried to make deportation of undocumented aliens who had committed crimes mandatory. Actually I wasn't aware that the law had been changed.

You know, I had the same thought but I thought it was the Carter administration re: their response to the Cuban boat "crisis" of '79.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Interesting non-sequitur, but you still haven't answered my question.

The real answer to your question is that I'm legally a citizen and as such the government lacks the authority to deport me to my country of origin.

Why? From where do these rights come from?

It stems from a State's national sovereignty.

Well, there isn't exactly a huge amount of people trying to leave New Zealand to go to the US, and presumably, Cali has decent eduction.

Now who's dodging questions, Ramo? If something is totalitarian, it is totalitarian in any and all circumstances.

Does the state also have the right to murder those who disagree with it, if the voters consent?

In the US, we commonly call this the death penalty. It's commonly reserved for murder cases though as opposed to political dissidents.

[Richard Bruns]

There should be no illegal immigrants in this country. We should give citizenship to anyone who wants it.

Having a large underclass that is routinely abused by employers and hounded by the government is a disgrace. History has shown that a pool of artificially cheap labor is always a bad thing for the economic, technological, and moral development of a society. On the other hand, immigration to the USA has always, in the long run, been good for both the immigrants and the country as a whole. Where would we be today if the Know-Nothings had been successful in keeping out the Irish, eastern Europeans, and other "undesireables"?

Go ahead and round them up. Then give them citizenship and free courses at a community college GED program. They have as much, if not more, right to be in the USA as the people born here.

American immigration laws are stupid. They are the result of small-minded, selfish people who would deny others the benefits that their ancestors were given. They deserve to be broken.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Richard Bruns
Having a large underclass that is routinely abused by employers and hounded by the government is a disgrace.

They could have avoided being part of this large underclass but they chose not to. Why should we be responsible to protect people from the consequences of decisions they freely make themselves?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
They could have avoided being part of this large underclass but they chose not to. Why should we be responsible to protect people from the consequences of decisions they freely make themselves?

Because it doesn't just protect them, it protects us. As long as employers want illegal labor, there will be illegal labor in this country. Furthermore, most illegal immigrants do work that Americans will not do. Obviously this country has a need for their labor. The question then is, if this labor is needed and demanded, what purpose does cracking down on illegal immigration serve?

Well, as I said before, mostly these people are employed in work Americans won't do, so we aren't deporting them in order to make more jobs available for Americans. Successfully cracking down on illegal immigrants would dry up available labor resources, and thus cause a rise in the price of labor, and since the Rebublican party goes apoplectic at the thought of paying someone more than they possibly have to, this cannot be the reason. However, if they unsuccessfully crack down on illegal immigrants, or crack down just enough, they can artificially depress the price of labor by making those who remain more desperate and thus more willing to accept any wage. This then depresses the price of labor throught the bottom rungs of society. This increases poverty, which increases crime, which increases the state's response to crime, which increases your taxes.

Abolish illegal immigration by making immigration legal. It's in all our best interests.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because it doesn't just protect them, it protects us. As long as employers want illegal labor, there will be illegal labor in this country. Furthermore, most illegal immigrants do work that Americans will not do. Obviously this country has a need for their labor. The question then is, if this labor is needed and demanded, what purpose does cracking down on illegal immigration serve?

Well, as I said before, mostly these people are employed in work Americans won't do, so we aren't deporting them in order to make more jobs available for Americans. Successfully cracking down on illegal immigrants would dry up available labor resources, and thus cause a rise in the price of labor, and since the Rebublican party goes apoplectic at the thought of paying someone more than they possibly have to, this cannot be the reason. However, if they unsuccessfully crack down on illegal immigrants, or crack down just enough, they can artificially depress the price of labor by making those who remain more desperate and thus more willing to accept any wage. This then depresses the price of labor throught the bottom rungs of society. This increases poverty, which increases crime, which increases the state's response to crime, which increases your taxes.

Abolish illegal immigration by making immigration legal. It's in all our best interests.

I agree

Jon Miller

[faded glory]

Originally posted by orange


Speaking English is not a requirement for living in the United States. Nor should it be.

Yes it should If you cant communicate with someone......err you should know this. Im not even going to explain it

On the second part. These people come here and get free Medi-Care and benefits without even paying a dime. If you honestly think its fair (because its cost us 80 billion +) then you need to have your head checked. If tthey are paying some sort of taxes, they are welcome.But if they are leeching, forget it.