Federal Government To Round Up Illegal Immigrants

[Ramo]

as a living organism it has the right to exist

First of all, how is the state a living organism? Also, why do living organisms have a right to exist? Do you believe an ant has the right to exist?

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

How are immigration restrictions protecting a states' citizens? Again, they're economically irresponsible and morally outrageous.

And why are only citizens part of the state?

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

Why?

with my statement I was maintaining that the space that the organism exists on is the property of the organism,

So to be consistent, you must believe that Hitler had the right to murder Germany's untermenschen, since you believe Germany was the property of the German state.

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.

No ****, but you still haven't answered my question. It was a philosophical, not legal, question. Again, what makes you believe you deserve to be here any more than "illegal" immigrants do?

It stems from a State's national sovereignty.

That response would be an example of circular reasoning. So, where does the state's national sovereignty come from?

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

The law says rich, educated people are welcome to this country, but poor people are not. In this respect, the law is totalitarian with both groups.

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

You didn't answer my question. Does a state have the right to murder political dissidents?

And damn straight, che!

[Ramo]

Yes it should If you cant communicate with someone......err you should know this.

Have you ever been to Texas or California? You really don't need English to communicate with people in large regions of these states.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by faded glory



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.

There is NO official language of America. None. No one should be required to speak any language to become a citizen here. If they don't want to learn English, where the hell do we get off forcing them to?

And of course they pay taxes. Virtually every time they make any purchase, outside of food, they pay taxes.

[Ramo]

On the second part. These people come here and get free Medi-Care and benefits

That's bull****. Illegal immigrants certainly do not get any federal benefits, including Medicare, barring emergency room benefits.

without even paying a dime.

Ever hear of payroll taxes? Social security taxes? And honestly, how much in income taxes do you believe citizens making equivalent income pay?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


First of all, how is the state a living organism? Also, why do living organisms have a right to exist? Do you believe an ant has the right to exist?

the living organism bit was a metaphorm, I would expect someone bright like you to see that

a state is formed by it's parts (the citizens) to care for their well being

How are immigration restrictions protecting a states' citizens? Again, they're economically irresponsible and morally outrageous.

note, I think that allowing innegration into a state is good for the state (I think that allowing anybody to leave a state is bad though)

And why are only citizens part of the state?

are you dense??

they are by definition

if you are not a citizen you are not part of the state

the citizens are those that joined together to form the state, so they are the state

Why?

because it is not fulfilling the reason the citizens joined together, so it loses it's right to exist

a state is a joining together of citizens for mutual care towards their rights

such as right to life and ect

So to be consistent, you must believe that Hitler had the right to murder Germany's untermenschen, since you believe Germany was the property of the German state.

you are being purposefuly dense

if they were citizens wrong for that reason

if they weren't it doesn't make sense and it would be immoral for the citizens of the sttate, not the state

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by faded glory
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.

You really need to stop listening to Rush. You know he just makes up his facts, don't you? Or at least, if you're gong to listen to Rush, then fer Chissake, don't quote his BS.

Illegal immigrants don't get much in the way of Federal benefits. What they do get, if they can manage it, is state benefits, depending on the state. However, even in relatively generous states, such as California, undocumented aliens contribute more in taxes than they get back in benefits. True, they don't pay income taxes, Medicare and Social Security, or any other payroll tax (unless they've acquired a fake SSN, in which case not only are they paying their fair share of taxes, but they'll never be able to collect on them).

[Ramo]

the living organism bit was a metaphorm, I would expect someone bright like you to see that

You were saying that because a living organism has the right to exist (which I don't agree with), a state has the right to exist. You have to prove why this is true, since a state is obviously not a living organism.

a state is formed by it's parts (the citizens) to care for their well being

Nope, read up on your anthropology. States were formed because after agriculture, people were able to monopolize economic power, and therefore political power. States are based on coercion.

In some hunter-gatherer societies, "states" where they existed, were based on strongmen, also coercion.

(I think that allowing anybody to leave a state is bad though)

Why?

are you dense??

they are by definition

Both legal and illegal residents pay taxes and gain benefits from public programs. Why are they not part of the state?

because it is not fulfilling the reason the citizens joined together, so it loses it's right to exist

a state is a joining together of citizens for mutual care towards their rights

Not true.

such as right to life and ect

Granting non-ruling individuals rights has been a very modern phenomenon.

What about the freedom of non-citizens? What about freedom of movement?

you are being purposefuly dense

if they were citizens wrong for that reason

Wrong for what reason? You said that the citizens, collectively, have the right to coerce other citizens into doing what the majority wants (and you likened my opposition to this to theft). If citizens have the right to prevent non-citizens into the property of citizens, why don't they have the right to murder citizens?

if they weren't it doesn't make sense and it would be immoral for the citizens of the sttate, not the state

You're not answering my question. Do citizens have the right to kill these people, even if they are non-citizens?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Ramo


You were saying that because a living organism has the right to exist (which I don't agree with), a state has the right to exist. You have to prove why this is true, since a state is obviously not a living organism.



Nope, read up on your anthropology. States were formed because after agriculture, people were able to monopolize economic power, and therefore political power. States are based on coercion.

when states were formed there was only a small group of citizens (like the free males in Athens)

it is obviously better when all inhabitants of the state are citizens of it

In some hunter-gatherer societies, "states" where they existed, were based on strongmen, also coercion.

and if those states did not take care of their citizens they ended

Why?

Because it is the people or citizens of the state which give it it's power. By leaving they take resources from the state (Themselves) and decrease the states ability to exist.

Both legal and illegal residents pay taxes and gain benefits from public programs. Why are they not part of the state?

But only citizens make up the state. The other are just what the state interacts with. A state is hte grouping together of individuals for their mutual benifit. Illegal residents are not part of this contract, instead they are parasitic, feeding off the grouping made by the citizens of the state. If you do not sign the contract, you are not part of the deal.

I think that they should be allowed to be part of the state, because then the state gets more powerful. However, the state exists for the mutual care of it's citizens and so the decision lies with them.

Not true.

that is how I have defined a state, and in the end that is how every state has been, those who wree not suvccesful no longer exist

Granting non-ruling individuals rights has been a very modern phenomenon.

and one which states did because that was how to best mutually care for their citizens

What about the freedom of non-citizens? What about freedom of movement?

Non-citizens have tyhe freedom to engage in a contract with other non-citizens and create a new state to care for them. Non-citizens also have the freedom to engage in a contract with an existing state to have it care for them.

Freedom of Movement???

If that is what is in the best inteerest of the state (ie it's citizens).

Wrong for what reason? You said that the citizens, collectively, have the right to coerce other citizens into doing what the majority wants (and you likened my opposition to this to theft). If citizens have the right to prevent non-citizens into the property of citizens, why don't they have the right to murder citizens?

if citizens go arround and murdering other citizens that is breaking the contract for care of citizens (ie parts of the state)

of course the sttate has the right to put down a citizen which is damaging the other citizens

You're not answering my question. Do citizens have the right to kill these people, even if they are non-citizens?

depends

once you have citizens doing something, then you must ask if it was moral

American Indian - immoral
WW2 - moral
Holocaust - immoral

the state was not moral or immoral in these cases (the state is amoral) but the citizens were and should be responded to as such

Jon Miller

[Dr Strangelove]

Illegal immigrants do indeed get social benefits! The federal government issues social security numbers to them in order to withold taxes from their income. Having social security numbers, they can get social benefits in many states, including Virginia. Why doesn't the federal government simply locate illegal immigrants by correlating lists of people getting new social security numbers who weren't born in the USA and who aren't registered aliens? It's simple: the Supreme Court says they can't!

Considering the statement that illegal immigrants do work that Americans won't I'd have to reply: Are the prisons empty?

Oh, BTW, I wouldn't consider ALL American Indians immoral, only some of them! Many white Americans are also immoral, and even some heroes of the glorious Cuban revolution are immoral! At least, they he was until the Bolivian police blew him away!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Considering the statement that illegal immigrants do work that Americans won't I'd have to reply: Are the prisons empty?

I don't know about you. but I certainly wouldn't even consider patronizing a restaraunt that used convict slave labor, nor would I want such persons mowing my lawn or watching my kids or cleaning my house. Furthermore, I'd hate for the state to have an incentive to start imprisoning people in order to rent them out for slavery.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Again, what makes you believe you deserve to be here any more than "illegal" immigrants do?

I told you the answer. Morality is entirely irrelevent to this position. Would you care to enlighten me about the reasons why you deserve your computer anymore than I do?

So, where does the state's national sovereignty come from?

Complete independence and self-government (sovereignty) over a recognized territory is a necessary condition a government has to exercise in order to be considered legitimate.

You didn't answer my question. Does a state have the right to murder political dissidents?

If they commit murder in pursuit of thier political goals, yes. Otherwise, no. What this has to do with the arguement at hand, I don't know.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I don't know about you. but I certainly wouldn't even consider patronizing a restaraunt that used convict slave labor, nor would I want such persons mowing my lawn or watching my kids or cleaning my house. Furthermore, I'd hate for the state to have an incentive to start imprisoning people in order to rent them out for slavery.

Not even if they come with their own state trooper completely equipped with sawed-off shotgun and reflective aviator's sunglasses ala "The Man with No Eyes" in "Hud"?

[chequita guevara]

What would I leave for a tip?

[Dr Strangelove]

I don't know. How about "Crime doesn't pay."

[Ramo]

I told you the answer.

Where? I know the law perfectly well. I was asking for the justification of it.

Morality is entirely irrelevent to this position.

Morality is entirely relevant to every position. Even your Machiavellian nationalistic real-politik philosophy is a form of morality, whether or not you put it in those terms.

Would you care to enlighten me about the reasons why you deserve your computer anymore than I do?

That's not an analagous question. This is about state coercion, not economic philosophy.

Complete independence and self-government (sovereignty) over a recognized territory is a necessary condition a government has to exercise in order to be considered legitimate.

So you're saying that the state has the right to do anything it wants on its territory. Why is that so? You're not explaining anything.

BTW, I was wondering the implication of what you call the rights of the state? What does it gain by having the right to do something?

Otherwise, no.

Why do you not believe that states have the right to massacre peaceful political dissidents, but do have the right to control its borders?

What this has to do with the arguement at hand, I don't know.

To prove that your position is totally inconsistent.

when states were formed there was only a small group of citizens (like the free males in Athens)

it is obviously better when all inhabitants of the state are citizens of it

Your point being...? You haven't explained why a state has the right to exist.

Because it is the people or citizens of the state which give it it's power. By leaving they take resources from the state (Themselves) and decrease the states ability to exist.

If the state controls the movement of certain citizens, it certainly is not acting in a manner beneficial to those citizens. In economic terms, most citizens. Doesn't your ideal state then no longer become state, by your definition?

But only citizens make up the state. The other are just what the state interacts with. A state is hte grouping together of individuals for their mutual benifit.

I would consider that true for only very few states (real definition, not your definition). Under your definition, AFAIK, the US is not a state.

Illegal residents are not part of this contract, instead they are parasitic, feeding off the grouping made by the citizens of the state.

Illegal residents certainly are not parasitic. They pay taxes, but get few, if any, benefits. In fact, the opposite is true; citizens are parasitic off the illegal residents.

I think that they should be allowed to be part of the state, because then the state gets more powerful. However, the state exists for the mutual care of it's citizens and so the decision lies with them.

But if the state does not allow them in, it ceases to act in the mutual interest of its citizens, and no longer becomes a state.

If you do not sign the contract, you are not part of the deal.

I've never signed any such contract with the US gov't, nor do I plan to.

and in the end that is how every state has been

Well, you just redefined "state!" How can I argue with that?

However, the state exists for the mutual care of it's citizens and so the decision lies with them.

What do you consider to be states? Colombia? Turkey? Iran? Israel? The US? Are any of these states?

and one which states did because that was how to best mutually care for their citizens

You'll have to read up on your history too. The Bill of Rights, for example, was instituted as checks against federal governments over state governments. It didn't apply to citizens until decades after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Similarly, the Magna Carta was primarily a check on the King over the nobility. These and similar institutions changed to ensure the power of the state, not for the benefit of its citizens.

Non-citizens have tyhe freedom to engage in a contract with other non-citizens and create a new state to care for them. Non-citizens also have the freedom to engage in a contract with an existing state to have it care for them.

Why do you assert non-citizens have these rights, but they do not have the right to enter in contracts with citizens?

if citizens go arround and murdering other citizens that is breaking the contract for care of citizens (ie parts of the state)

of course the sttate has the right to put down a citizen which is damaging the other citizens

And why is the state not breaking its contract when coercing citizens (i.e. creating immigration restrictions)?

depends

once you have citizens doing something, then you must ask if it was moral

No, it does not depend. Either, the state has the right to do something or not.

American Indian - immoral