steve wrote:I support illegal immigrants. I don't have an opinion about whether or not they ought to be coming here, because that's the sort of risk analysis they have to make for themselves. It's obviously traumatic and dangerous to come to a foreign country (where you are not necessarily welcome) and try to scrape out a living doing the work nobody else wants to do.

These people are obviously brave and clearly face hardship that drive them to take desperate measures and endure the degradations of being illegal residents continuously at risk. I don't think it is a civilized response to do anything but sympathize and even admire them.

Illegal immigrants are only a small step above prisoners in terms of their standing in society and their ability to affect their circumstances. Making them out as villains is the work of the xenophobic sick fucks I care not to associate with.

As a nation of immigrants it seems fundamentally wrong for us to suggest we the need Soviet-style closed borders the right wing is suggesting. We have never had them, we have never needed them, and they are a bad idea.

Agree completely.

Rick Reuben wrote:

steve wrote:I support illegal immigrants. I don't have an opinion about whether or not they ought to be coming here, because that's the sort of risk analysis they have to make for themselves.

That's some of the dumbest shit I've ever read. How is it possible for a conscious functional adult to look at the term 'illegal immigrants' and say, "I recuse myself from offering an opinion on the legality of their status. Instead, I will pretend that the word 'illegal' is invisible to me, and I will measure them against legal immigrants. Or, I will have the incredible hubris to say that the legality of the immigrant is irrelevant."

Because it's more important to some to be thoughtful, considerate human beings than to be law abiding Americans. current immigration laws make the two mutually exclusive, particularly in the context of trade regulations.

I support it mostly because It always pissed me off that who is to say where I can live and where I cant live! Who has the right to put up borders, and I never asked to be born here. Now I understand that alot of people will think that this is stupid and all but it's only my opinion. I believe you should be able to travel and live where you whould like to, don't get me wrong I love the ol USA but Mexican food kicks ass and they are welcome to live next to me.

Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:Because it's more important to some to be thoughtful, considerate human beings than to be law abiding Americans.

Except for the fact that a majority of Americans ( who do think of themselves as thoughtful, considerate human beings ) do not want current immigration laws ignored- they have decided to be thoughtful and considerate towards their fellow legalized citizens, and protect them from having their jobs stolen by illegals. If you have decided that you and your minority are the 'learned ones' because you reject immigration enforcement, then you need a whole new country to suit you- because in the current USA, we have a republic where the majority of citizens are allowed to vote in representatives who execute their wishes.

I'd be interested to see how many jobs that would be filled by US citizens are currently filled by illegal immigrants. I reject the idea that US citizens would fill those jobs.

Bottom line is that these are human beings doing precisely what you or I would do in their situation, assuming we had the nerve. I'm not going to sit back and judge someone as 'wrong', or even argue against it, when that's precisely what they should do. Survival trumps nationality every time.

I'd also suggest that you ditch the 'love it or leave it attitude'. Where were you when the minorities fought for the right to vote...out suggesting they go make their own country?

EDIT:

1. It's also hard to be a thoughful considerate human being while telling someone to starve behind a line.

2. If the American tenet is free trade, or we truly adhere to a free market, then what's so scary about really sticking to that formula?

Rick Reuben wrote:

major malling marsupial wrote:

steve wrote:

major malling marsupial wrote:Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power given to all people by law.)

FYP

i thought i knew what civil rights meant, but you're free to go to wikipedia and FYP it.

You are right. Steve BYP ( broke your post ). Civil rights are a contract between a government and its citizens. Governments only have jurisdiction over citizens, and citizens are only answerable to one government, and it is not run by God. If you want to believe that you hold rights that pre-exist the earthly government that granted them, you must choose either theocracy or anarchy, and even if you choose theocracy, you are reliant upon a man-made government to enforce the interpretation of god-given rights.

Civil rights are a closed loop between government and citizens. If they weren't, then Steve would have to take the phrase 'by law' out of his 'fixed' post, because the use of the phrase 'by law' proves that these rights are issued by governments. Where else would they come from? The only time a person ever needs to demand his civil rights is when they are trampled on by government, or by society at large, in violation of laws set by man-created government. And non-citizens do not have standing before these courts.

Human rights supercede civil rights, so I'll stick with the guy trying to survive before I stick with the guy trying to abide by his contractual rules he had no choice but to make with his government.

Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:Human rights supercede civil rights

Really? Who enforces them? If you take 'government' off your list, then the only person to enforce your rights is you and your shotgun. Are you in a militia? If you seriously believe that humans hold rights that supersede government-issued rights, the you must choose anarchist 'every man for himself' world, because this statement:

Human rights supercede civil rights

invalidates government as a concept. Why would you need government if you think you have rights that a government isn't needed to protect?

That's some slippery slope you have there.

The laws enacted by government should enforce human rights first, then the proper functioning of that specific nation second.

Why do you think the laws prohibiting murder exist? Because the US would function less efficiently if we all killed each other, or because killing people is wrong?

The simple fact is that we are calling something illegal that is absolutely necessary, and that's not efficient, moral or functional.

Wood Goblin wrote:I haven't really considered the economic implications of it, but these days, I'm starting to wonder whether open borders (with registration, of course, and an opportunity for citizenship for those who wish to enjoy all of the privileges of America) may be the right thing to do.

I oppose closing the border, but I can't say that I feel comfortable with the current situation either, wherein millions of people live off the radar and are thus subject to all sorts of exploitation and abuse.

I agree completely, but this is the best of several bad situations that are actually palpable.

IMHO the ideal would be to let in roughly the same net amount of immigrants except legally, either via work visa or naturalization, but still close the borders enough to filter out criminals/US deportees/Mexican Mafia members/turrurrists. This would make it much more difficult for employers to hire immigrant workers off the grid and exploit them like they do now, as well as remove the single largest barrier to exploited workers seeking recourse: fear of criminal sanctions.

Of course, that will never, ever happen, ever. We as a country of immigrants can debate the degree of hipocrisy w/r/t ethnocentricism and xenophobia in the US, but the fact is that it's not going away anytime soon and our quotas won't budge. Whining about Mexicans not "assimilating" while secretly enjoying the $1500 they saved on their new in-ground pool simply works too well.

Our best workaround is simply to put some more teeth in the labor codes. Texas, for example, allows illegals into the workers' comp system. Workers' comp benefits come from employers' insurance, not taxpayer money, so at least they can get health care from work injuries. If OSHA beefs up their enforcement, employers with hazardous work conditions will get nailed one way or the other regardless of who works there. Etc. etc. etc.

Rick Reuben wrote:

bigc wrote:The laws enacted by government should enforce human rights first.

Can't you read? I said you need a government to enforce any rights you want to keep. Once a government steps into the picture, then your 'human rights' become 'civil rights', because now you have a government behind them. You said this earlier:

bigc wrote:Human rights supercede civil rights

You tell me how you have enforceable human rights without a government. If you agree that you need a government to enforce rights, then tell me why a government is obligated to offer this enforcement to non-citizens.

bigc wrote:The simple fact is that we are calling something illegal that is absolutely necessary, and that's not efficient, moral or functional.

Illegal immigration is absolutely necessary?? Hilarious. Most liberals don't go that far. We are calling illegal immigration illegal because it is in violation of the law. That is what 'illegal' means. If you really really want pot, are you going to tell the cops that they are calling something illegal that is 'absolutely necessary'?? That would get a good laugh.

Yes, I can read. Good question. Also thanks for bringing the 'liberal' label into the discussion. That's goign to serve you well when you start attaching other idologies to me to serve your argument.

Human rights can exist without being enforced. Whether or not they are enforced can be up to governments, and they can be up to individuals.

Do you speed when driving? Then, by your estimation, you must be an anarchist. Are you in a militia, law-breaking speeder?

If I am on one side of a line without food, shelter and opporunity that is on the other side of that line, I am going to cross that line. We all, every single one of us, weigh what is practical or necessary against what is ideal every day of our lives. In an ideal world, that line would not exist, and I would not be without food, shelter or opportunity.

Necessities are absolutely necessary (can you read?) to my survival, long before the administration of civil rights by pompous, condescending purveyors of political theory.

depends.

Rick Reuben wrote:Illegal immigration is absolutely necessary?? Hilarious. Most liberals don't go that far. We are calling illegal immigration illegal because it is in violation of the law. That is what 'illegal' means.

The problem is the law itself, not the immigrants.

Civil disobedience really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp, but here's the Wiki anyway. It has almost always been the most effective way to abolish morally repugnant laws, at least in US history.

How do you feel about Rosa Parks?