Immigration Bill proposed

[De Selby]

fistful,

You need to read Dred Scott.  There was no "standing" because blacks could not be citizens, since their parents hadn't been citizens.  That's why the 14th amendment made the rule birth, instead of lineage.

As for border plans...yeah, so far your most detailed plan consists of calling my opinions "ignorant."  Well, if it's ignorant to realize that building a giant fence in the desert and amending the constitution aren't going to happen...I think we've got two different dictionaries.

Like I said though, live in fantasy land all you want...it just makes it easier on those illegals when the only plans against them are ones guaranteed to never be implemented.

[Perd Hapley]

You need to read Dred Scott.  There was no "standing" because blacks could not be citizens, since their parents hadn't been citizens.  That's why the 14th amendment made the rule birth, instead of lineage.

You seem confused about whether it was a racial matter or a matter of hereditary non-citizenship.  It really doesn't matter, as Dred Scott has nothing do with immigration (unless you count his moving from state to state).  The key point to be made is that citizenship should be the result of formal naturalization or heredity, rather than being determined by the accident of birthplace.  To bring up Dred Scott is merely a smear, but you knew that. 

As for border plans...yeah, so far your most detailed plan consists of calling my opinions "ignorant." 

  Yeah, I really thought chatting with you was going to resolve the immigration issue.      I don't owe you any plan.  And until you tell me where Tancredo said we should "take a tomahawk to Mexicans," I won't feel obligated to discuss any other plans with you. 

[De Selby]

fistful,

I'm not doing it to smear: Dred Scott was the legal basis for laying out that rule of citizenship.

But yeah, it is kind of moot, because no one is going to amend the constitution solely due to anti-illegal sentiment.  It didn't happen in the past when amendments were easier to achieve and immigration was even more hated than it is now; it won't happen tomorrow.

[Perd Hapley]

fistful,

I'm not doing it to smear: Dred Scott was the legal basis for laying out that rule of citizenship.

What rule of citizenship?  Hereditary? 

[De Selby]

fistful,

Yes

[Perd Hapley]

Wanted to make sure you saw this first, as I edited it into a post a little bit ago.

As for border plans...yeah, so far your most detailed plan consists of calling my opinions "ignorant." 

  Yeah, I really thought chatting with you was going to resolve the immigration issue.      I don't owe you any plan.  And until you tell me where Tancredo said we should "take a tomahawk to Mexicans," I won't feel obligated to discuss any other plans with you. 


Let me also clear up that my contention with you has never been about whether a wall or an amendment are likely to happen.  You could be right on that point, I just don't know. 

I'm not doing it to smear: Dred Scott was the legal basis for laying out that rule of citizenship.

You're not that naive.  You know it's just a smear tactic.  But if that is the best you can do to support your position...

[CAnnoneer]

fistful, there is little point in feeding the lawyerism approach. The main pragmatic point is one of national interests and immigration policy that is consistent with them. What some old rule says is insignificant in comparison, especially when it is so unclear that it can be twisted to mean virtually anything black-robed gavel-wielding petty-dictators choose it to mean. The more we let leftist lawyerists cloud the issues with half-truths and legal banter, the more we lose track of what the legal system is actually meant to do, which is serve our nation and its interests. KISS.

[De Selby]

Please note that what I posted about Tancredo was my own nickname for him.  But yeah, it doesn't really matter who he is or what he's said, because he won't be elected.

My whole point about this immigration debate is that the anti-immigrant types never propose workable, realistic solutions.  That's it.

[Manedwolf]

Please note that what I posted about Tancredo was my own nickname for him.  But yeah, it doesn't really matter who he is or what he's said, because he won't be elected.

Don't be too sure of that. If he runs and Thompson doesn't, I'll be voting for him.

My whole point about this immigration debate is that the anti-immigrant types never propose workable, realistic solutions.  That's it.

Since you persist in the "anti-immigration" canard despite repeated corrections, I don't think any further discussion with you is possible.

[De Selby]

Manedwolf, let's be fair here:  I asked you explicitly what you would say if the law were changed to make illegal immigrants legal, and you went on about the english language and culture.  Those are arguments that only make sense if you are anti-immigrant.  If you're only against the illegal part, spanish language speaking and culture do not violate any laws...so I'm hard pressed to see how this is not about immigrants period.

Tancredo announced his bid.  Be my guest to vote for him, but know that you will be voting for someone who won't be elected. 

[Perd Hapley]

Shootinstudent,

While America has welcomed great numbers of immigrants to its shores, it has long seen fit to regulate that influx, sometimes limiting the number who may enter at a particular time.  While racially-based policies are thankfully no longer widely acceptable, there remain many reasons why immigration is regulated by law.  Wiki will get you started, and I am sure you can find other sources on the internet.  If there is a lending library in your area, you might want to take advantage of that, too.  Have fun, tiger! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#Ethics_of_migration

[CAnnoneer]

I am still waiting for the "open-borders" ideologues to run us through the scenario I suggested. If you lock your domicile's door to strangers, you are clearly for border control. If not, post your address and I will send you some "undocumented tenants". Heh.

[De Selby]

CAnnoneer,

Creating a hypothetical to locking your home, and then extrapolating to national immigration policy is a great way to make soundbites that a) don't really add anything and b) come with ridiculous plans.

"Why don't we just lock the door of the nation!?"

Uh, because there isn't a door with a deadbolt on it.  There's thousands of miles of open desert instead. 

Not really the same, are they?

[CAnnoneer]

Uh, because there isn't a door with a deadbolt on it.  There's thousands of miles of open desert instead. Not really the same, are they?

More bullcrap. "Open borders" is a philosophical, not pragmatic stance. The scenario has nothing to do with the physical capability or lack thereof, of securing the actual border, just as no security system on earth will prevent somebody determined enough to burglarize your house. Still, just because somebody might make it through with crowbars and dynamite does not mean you leave your door unlocked because "nothing can be done anyway". Therein the hypocrisy. I will believe the Rabbi and co. are sincere and intellectually honest about their stance only after their own houses are brimful of drifters, homeless, etc.

[The Rabbi]

Please note that what I posted about Tancredo was my own nickname for him.  But yeah, it doesn't really matter who he is or what he's said, because he won't be elected.

My whole point about this immigration debate is that the anti-immigrant types never propose workable, realistic solutions.  That's it.

Shootin'
You will not get anything here other than insults, dished out by the fistful, false comparisons (your house and the US really are the same.  Really!), and cultural stereotypes.
I began by saying that meaningful debate would not occur until those on the anti side aknowledge they have no workable solutions to the problem.  That hasn't happened.  Nor will it.
But just to stir things: one of the claims made (which is ludicrous in light of the country's sub 5% unemployment rate) is that illegals take jobs from "fine upstanding Americans."
In fact, not only is this not so, illegals have actually raised wages.  This was the result from this study:
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=737

So the arguments against the current illegal immigration are:
1) They steal jobs from Americans.  Refuted.
2) They use a disproportionate amount of government services.  Unproven.
3) They violate the law when they come here illegally.  So change the law.  And people who buy on the internet without paying sales taxes also violate the law.  Big deal.
4) They steal and commit crimes.  So do tons of native born Americans.  Punish the guilty.
5) They talk funny languages.  So did my great-grandfather.
6) Their culture threatens to overwhelm our own.  I dont know what "our own" culture is.  My life is very different from most of the people on this board.  Many of us have unique pursuits and tastes.  This is a scare-tactic worthy of Harry Reid or something.
I'll end by saying you cannot beat something with nothing.  And those on the anti side have nothing to offer.

[CAnnoneer]

So the arguments against the current illegal immigration are:
1) They steal jobs from Americans.  Refuted.

You know that to be false. At the least, there are occasions in which Americans have been violently driven away by illegals from trying to get certain low-paying jobs. It has been mentioned here and on THR.

2) They use a disproportionate amount of government services.  Unproven.

They should not get ANY government services because they should not be here in the first place. Also, maybe you should come visit SoCal and take a quick tour of the schools. They are stuffed with illegals' kids. So long as I am made pay for their education through my state taxes, I have a legitimate complaint and so do all other Californians.

3) They violate the law when they come here illegally.  So change the law.  And people who buy on the internet without paying sales taxes also violate the law.  Big deal.

Maybe the rest of us should pay you a visit and help ourselves to your gun store. But it is illegal? Big deal. Just change the law.

4) They steal and commit crimes.  So do tons of native born Americans.  Punish the guilty.

Are you willing to pay for the extra prisons etc.? Are you willing to take all the added negative consequences of the added criminality? I am not.

5) They talk funny languages.  So did my great-grandfather.

But you speak English now and we understand you. Have it your way and then you'd better learn at least a few other languages and so should your progeny.

6) Their culture threatens to overwhelm our own.  I dont know what "our own" culture is.  My life is very different from most of the people on this board.  Many of us have unique pursuits and tastes. 

Therein the heart of the matter. You live in your own insular bubble made possible by the nature of the very society you are willing to change so cavalierly. If you think you will not be negatively affected by what you propose, I have some prime tundra to sell you in L.A.

[De Selby]

Rabbi,

It does no good arguing facts when it's "for the children" you're arguing against-

. Have it your way and then you'd better learn at least a few other languages and so should your progeny.

[The Rabbi]

Thanks for proving my point.  You have provided nothing, nada, to the debate other than some old worn out cliches, inappropriate comparisons (my store is not like the U.S.) and anecdotal evidence.
Your side is utterly bankrupt of ideas.  Paying for jails for illegals who commit crimes?  Don't you imagine that might be cheaper--by a factor of 100 or more--than building a wall to nowhere and repatriating 10M people, every year?

[CAnnoneer]

Your side is utterly bankrupt of ideas. 

Again, you know this to be false. We have plenty of workable ideas. The problem is we have to overcome the resistance of leftists, big business, and the confused like yourself, to implement them. But you already knew this.

Paying for jails for illegals who commit crimes?  Don't you imagine that might be cheaper--by a factor of 100 or more--than building a wall to nowhere and repatriating 10M people, every year?

They will repatriate themselves once it becomes clear to them that:
1) They will never get citizenship
2) They will not get any gov assistance
3) They will not get any job other than possibly the most menial, least paying, most unenforcible ones, ever.

In fact, several hundred thousand of them do exactly that, each year, on their own dime. But you already knew that.

What you might not know is that 30% to 50% of our prison population is illegals, and that each one of them costs you, me, and the other taxpayers the tidy sum of $55k per year.

[CAnnoneer]

It does no good arguing facts when it's "for the children" you're arguing against-
 

Keep sidestepping the real issues and pulling at words to think you are negating arguments. Keep thinking anybody is fooled.

If you live in this country (which I seriously doubt), you will be certain to pay the consequences of the policies you espouse, if we have the misfortune or lack of vision to implement them as a society. Unfortunately, watching you suffer because of them as well, would be insufficient repayment for the harm caused.

[De Selby]

CAnnoneer,

If you live in this country (which I seriously doubt), you will be certain to pay the consequences of the policies you espouse, if we have the misfortune or lack of vision to implement them as a society. Unfortunately, watching you suffer because of them as well, would be insufficient repayment for the harm caused.

"lack of vision"=that majority of the population that will not be mobilized by your fear of illegal immigrants.

I really don't mind your opinion, I'm just pointing out that it's not realistic.  Here in America, things don't happen at the snap of a finger, and there are all sorts of things (like laws, humane attitudes, etc etc) that prevent the enactment of draconian measures.

[The Rabbi]

Your side is utterly bankrupt of ideas.

Again, you know this to be false. We have plenty of workable ideas. The problem is we have to overcome the resistance of leftists, big business, and the confused like yourself, to implement them. But you already knew this.

Your ideas of "workable" include amending the Constitution, building the wall to nowhere, and shooting people on sight.  I wouldn't call those workable outside of internet discussion fora.  I am hardly confused on the issue.  Not nearly so confused as to think that effective measures against illegals would render the US a police state.  But maybe that's what you want after all.

[woodcdi]

I think a good start would be to release Capmeon and Ramos.

Woody

    Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood

[roo_ster]

I began by saying that meaningful debate would not occur until those on the anti side aknowledge they have no workable solutions to the problem.

Ahh, the "Iranian School" of debate:  "Meaningful debate can not begin until you have admitted you are wrong and I am right."

Perhaps an alias change from "The Rabbi" to "The Mullah" is in order.

That hasn't happened.  Nor will it.

It will not happen because:
1. There are effective, workable solutions.
2. Those solutions are do-able financially.
3. Those solutions have the support of the majority of citizens.

I have done the math, in simple terms here and at THR in the past.  Others have gone beyond simple spreadsheet-whipping/ROM estimation and priced out candidate hardware, software, labor & other costs in tools like http://www.pricesystems.com/ and others.

Industry is currently developing solutions, submitting bids on RFPs, and implementing solutions in this and other countries as we sit here in front of our keyboards.  They think it can be done in a cost-effective manner, while turning a tidy profit.

THAT is reality.  Until the open-borders crowd manage to squeeze some of that reality in between their ad hominem, misconceptions, and FUD; I'll find it difficult to take them seriously.

[Manedwolf]

I began by saying that meaningful debate would not occur until those on the anti side aknowledge they have no workable solutions to the problem.

Ahh, the "Iranian School" of debate:  "Meaningful debate can not begin until you have admitted you are wrong and I am right."

Perhaps an alias change from "The Rabbi" to "The Mullah" is in order.

That hasn't happened.  Nor will it.

It will not happen because:
1. There are effective, workable solutions.
2. Those solutions are do-able financially.
3. Those solutions have the support of the majority of citizens.

I have done the math, in simple terms here and at THR in the past.  Others have gone beyond simple spreadsheet-whipping/ROM estimation and priced out candidate hardware, software, labor & other costs in tools like http://www.pricesystems.com/ and others.

Industry is currently developing solutions, submitting bids on RFPs, and implementing solutions in this and other countries as we sit here in front of our keyboards.  They think it can be done in a cost-effective manner, while turning a tidy profit.

THAT is reality.  Until the open-borders crowd manage to squeeze some of that reality in between their ad hominem, misconceptions, and FUD; I'll find it difficult to take them seriously.

I certainly think that a nation that put the first human beings on the moon and helped bring down the Soviet Union, one that built coast to coast highways and giant dams...

...can certainly solve the problem of securing the border effectively. And yes, private industry has been busy developing workable solutions. I think it's far more productive to consider them than to just sit back and throw bombs, and say "It'll never work."