Ok,so now I have another question for you all. Say we don't let immagrants in,and we don't let them in and so one for a couple of years,pretty soon you'll be ****ing your brother/cousin/whatever you wanna call it. If we don't let new people into the USA pretty soon we're all gonna be related and we'll have retarded kids. What do you think about that?
quote:It's not fair at all to compare illegals to Americans on Welfare or tax evaders. They need to be punished as the citizens they are, not as illegal foreigners.
Exactly puffinkeeper.
quote:America has no innate right to punish me if I violate a silly and frivolous law, like the ones prohibiting certain types of sexual behavior in Southern States. Or do you really think that prison time is suitable punishment for something like sodomy? The fact of the matter is, there are stupid laws, and they have no business being on the books or enforced.
You have your right to think that this law is stupid. You want us to believe it though. This requires that you find proof to change our minds. The fact that the law is what it is, and we agree with it, is all the proof that we need. Obviously the government feels the same way otherwise there would not be a law. You give us some proof for a change, and a convincing argument, then maybe we will believe you.
quote:The only thing you have "repeatedly hashed out" is a slightly negative effect on our economy. This is hardly repayable by deportion. By this logic, all people on Welfare or evading taxes should be immediately deported, since they are having a negative effect on our economy.
You should be saying "a slightly negative effect on our economy for you. That is not a "slight negative effect" to the person screwed out of the job by the illegal immigrants that you want to be allowed in. Just because you are not being hurt by it does not mean that no one else is hurt by it. If no one was hurting because of illegal immigrantion, there would be no laws prohibiting it. Obviously.
quote:What? You're the one saying illegals shouldn't be allowed to have jobs; the burden of proof is on you to justify that statement. If this were an argument on abortion, and you were saying the practice should be banned, the onus of proof is on you to state why, not for me to create a compelling case for it. Obviously there's a good reason for it already, since people are already doing it.
By your logic in that paragraph, that would mean that you are the one who has to have the proof. Using your example: the one who wants the law changed should be the one with the proof. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law and are going to be punished. You think illegal immigrants should not be punished. You are the one who wants the law changed; you get the proof.
quote:Morality is not irrelevant by any stretch of the imagination; indeed, it is the core of all laws. We don't pass laws to make economic or social points, we pass them on almost purely moral grounds. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.
Morality is subjective; therefore, everyone has a different morality code. The moral "laws" that everyone agrees on are put into laws (like no killing, no stealing, etc). Economic points have a lot to do with it too; the USA is going to try to protect its citizens' welfare by all decent means that are necessary. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.
quote:Kicking someone out of a country for purely economic reasons is "morally neutral" eh? How would you feel if you lost your job and were kicked out of your town, because you had to subsist on Welfare for awhile. After all, you're having a negative effect on the economy, and by your own statements you feel that is plenty enough reason to kick someone out.
First off, your example has nothing to do with anything. Second, the people are not kicked out for "purely economic reasons;" they are kicked out because they broke the law by hopping the border. If they want to become citizens, they can wait in line like everyone else. Why should illegal immigrants get to come in without the hassle while all those other people, who are following the law and coming in legally, have to wait in line and do a huge amount of paperwork? I, for one, do not think that is fair to their neighbors.
quote:Evasion.
And you have not done so as well?
quote:If you can't see what the difference is between a guy hopping a chain-link fence in middle-of-nowhere-Mexico and someone smashing your window and invading your home, you should seek immediate psychiatric help.
You are the one who should be seeking help; you obviously did not understand the point she was making.
quote:Any law not motivated by a desire to enforce morality is a stupid law, and one that has no place being in existence. According to your bizarre interpretation of legality, we should start passing laws saying that it's perfectly legal to sell drugs to minors for outrageous prices, because it would be good for the economy.
Well, I think that the fact that downloading music is illegal is a "stupid" law. The difference between you and me is that I realize that this law must be in place for a reason. The laws get dissected so much before they get put into place that a law that did nothing would not get put in place.
So I thought about it and realized this: the people who sing the songs, the people who put the CDs together, and the people who sell it are being screwed out of money if I do not buy the music. That is not fair to the people who put so much effort into making that music.
Same thing for the illegal immigration: illegal immigrants are basically cheating by hopping the border, skipping the lines, and screwing the paperwork that is necessary for them to become legal citizens, and that is not fair to Americans or to those who are trying to immigrate.
As you said, "How the fek can this continue to elude you?"
quote:News Flash: Even with immigration laws in effect, the events of 9/11 still occured. Immigration laws aren't magic. If you think that you can prevent terrorists from getting into the country simply because it is illegal for them to do so, you're simply being deliberatly naive.
News Flash: Of course it did; those guys illegally immigrated, had fake IDs, and fake Visas. If someone had stopped these ILLEGALS, then 9/11 might not have happened. Did not help any that the airlines did not listen to the government or the FAA who suggested putting metal doors onto the cockpit instead of those flimsy plastic curtains that were kicked in. Besides, those guys had religious motivation, and no law can stop a kamikaze.
quote:Another News Flash: Immigrants have been pouring into America ever sinced it's been a country. Less than a decade ago, we had a fabulous economy, and since then there have been no significant change in immigration rates, legal or otherwise. To pinpoint immigration as the sole, or even major force on the economy is absurd.
Another News Flash: We were never blaming immigrants for all of the economy problems. We were blaming them for the ones they create.
quote:Morals are intrinsic to this, as I described above. Without morals, you're simply stating that "the ends justify the means," and anything which benefits our economy is A-OK, since "subjective moral standards" are not allowed to enter the discussion.
No they are not. Morals are the basis of some laws, economics are the basis of others, and politics can be the basis of even others.
Example of a moral law: Rape. Example of an economic law: Free trade agreements. Example of a political law: No one who is not a citizen of this country can become the President.
quote:There is temporary economic damage being done with a long-term benefit to the economy if the immigrants move over completely. That's obviously what I meant if you think about it for longer than 5 seconds, and I grow tired of these evasions.
Are you an economics teacher? No? Then you are not qualified to say what is or is not a long-term benefit to the economy, because frankly, you have no idea. You are just a little child, still in school, trying to figure out what you want to be in life. I grow tired of your lack of understanding and your unwillingness to admit that you are wrong.
quote:Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I say to form convulted strawmans?
Everyone point and laugh at the hypocrite.
quote:I am always amused by the irony when people post specifically to tell me that they do not care. Apparently, you cared enough to write up your diatribe about my post, and now think I am under some obligation to obey your imperious decree of not replying. Too bad, so sad.
I am always amused by the irony of morons who think that their ideas of what is right and wrong should be made into laws that effect every person, even though that said moron is just that: a moron.
Besides, I said that to see what you would say; if you were not so dumb, I would be amused by your reactions and replies.
quote:You completely missed the point of my car-door analogy. The point of an analogy is not to show that it is similar to the current situation, but to point out a flaw in your opponent's logic by showing what happens when they follow it in all instances.
You had no point. You are the one who completely missed my point. My point is that a) you are an idiot, and b) if you want a law changed, then go do something about it and stop b!tching and moaning to me, because I do not care what you think because I think you are wrong. Convince me otherwise.
quote:1. madpuffinkeeper feels that good laws do not require a moral component, only an economic/political one.
2. madpuffinkeeper feels that forcibly deporting someone is a reasonable punishment for the crime of daring to cross an imaginary line and work an honest job.
3. Xia feels that if something is a law, it is, by definition, utterly perfect and no one has any place to argue with it, since it was probably thought up by people "a lot smarter than you."
Summary:
1. You iare an idiot who cannot prove your points and has a warped concept of laws. 2. I agree with what madpuffinkeeper says because her statements make sense, unlike yours. 3. I feel that if something is a law, there must be a good reason for it. If I can find no good reason or if I find that it is harmful, then I should do something about it to get it changed. Also, most people are a lot smarter than you.
Addition:
Have you ever lived in a different country other than the USA, Sivad? If so, where?
Most other countries deport illegal immigrants if they are found. Most other countries also throw Americans in jail or deport them for breaking even the smallest, "stupidest" laws of their countries. Americans and their "rights" are not fondly thought of in different countries, because Americans think that they have more "rights" and they have a "right" to think they have.
P.S.:
If you want to admit that you are wrong, go ahead. We will not hold it against you, and we will not bring it up in the future if you just admit that you are wrong and drop it.
Ah, I thought so. I may have to read the trilogy one of these days. That's the great thing about Lewis's fiction...even if you're too young to get the full meaning (I was six when I read the Chronicles of Narnia...the allegory zoomed straight over my head), they're wonderfully entertaining. Even his nonfiction (the Christian apologetics I mentioned earlier) is conversational and actually fun to read, though I don't agree with all the points he makes. Love, Jen.
quote:America has no innate right to punish me if I violate a silly and frivolous law, like the ones prohibiting certain types of sexual behavior in Southern States.
I like how you slip the word "innate" in there. I never said anything about "innate rights", because everybody seems to have their own ideas of what our "innate rights" are and aren't. The truth of the matter is, our government does reserve the right to punish you for breaking the law, however "silly" or "frivolous" you consider it to be. That's all I was trying to point out.
quote:The only thing you have "repeatedly hashed out" is a slightly negative effect on our economy. This is hardly repayable by deportion. By this logic, all people on Welfare or evading taxes should be immediately deported, since they are having a negative effect on our economy.
They should be deported for violating our immigration laws, which are perfectly legitimate. The fact that they are bad for our economy is just one reason to be happy to see them go.
It's not fair at all to compare illegals to Americans on Welfare or tax evaders. They need to be punished as the citizens they are, not as illegal foreigners.
quote:What? You're the one saying illegals shouldn't be allowed to have jobs; the burden of proof is on you to justify that statement. If this were an argument on abortion, and you were saying the practice should be banned, the onus of proof is on you to state why, not for me to create a compelling case for it. Obviously there's a good reason for it already, since people are already doing it.
No, I am advocating the enforcement of existing immigration laws. You are arguing against those established laws, so the burden is on just one of us, it is you.
quote:Morality is not irrelevant by any stretch of the imagination; indeed, it is the core of all laws. We don't pass laws to make economic or social points, we pass them on almost purely moral grounds. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.
Morality is the "core of all laws"? Is morality the basis of tax laws? Or protectionism? Some laws are based on morals-- laws against murder, rape, and stealing are good examples-- but certainly not all laws have a basis in morality, as you claim. Some are merely there to protect and promote national interests. I believe the latter is the category into which immigration laws fall. I never said that all laws are in place for economic reasons-- I only said that morality is irrelevant in the discussion of immigration laws, and I stand by that.
quote:Or are you going to argue that laws against killing, stealing, and rape have no moral basis whatsoever and are merely used to enforce economic policies? We have laws governing trade and businesses that place bans on unethical practices in those fields. How do we define what's unethical? Ding ding ding! Morality. I can't believe you're actually claiming that morality is irrelevant to this issue.
You didn't even begin to prove your point. You say that you you can't believe I think morality is irrelevant to immigration laws and your justification is that morality is relevant to killing, stealing, and rape? Those things have nothing to do with this particular issue., so your point is not taken.
quote:I would also like to know on what grounds you label me a, "moral relativist." My moral system is based on the very simple concepts that life/pleasure is good and death/suffering is bad. It is hardly "relative."
You don't seem to care about the economic suffering of our country... I think you just pick and choose your moral crusades. And if you believe that the suffering of Mexicans is more important than the suffering of Americans, because Mexicans are poorer than Americans, then that is where the moral relativism comes into play.
quote:I also take it by your last statement that you would not steal the food to feed your starving children. If you can't see that your childrens' right to life far outweighs the property rights of someone else, you're the one in need of some moral schooling.
If my children were starving, I would exhaust other options, like hunting for food myself, begging, or scrounging.
If push came to shove, and I could find no other way to save my child, and if I were to steal, say, a loaf of bread, I would at least know that it was not right to steal and would accept punishment from authorities. Just because it seems that you only have one viable choice to make, doesn't make it the right thing to do. Do what you have to, and take responsibility for it if it's wrong or unlawful.
quote:What an excellent example of moral relativism. "It's not ok now, but back then it didn't violate any laws, therefore it was OK." You seem to be under the hilarious delusion that morality is defined by law, instead of the other way around.
I never said murdering the Indians was the "right" thing to do, then or now. I said it was legal, and therefore unpunishable by law, and that the idea of giving the land back to the Indians now and deporting everyone else is ludicrous.
quote:Kicking someone out of a country for purely economic reasons is "morally neutral" eh? How would you feel if you lost your job and were kicked out of your town, because you had to subsist on Welfare for awhile. After all, you're having a negative effect on the economy, and by your own statements you feel that is plenty enough reason to kick someone out.
1. Yes, it's morally neutral. 2. If I were an illegal, the job and the town would not rightfully be mine, so my feelings of attachment would be irrelevant. 3. I am not talking about deporting citizens and legal residents who rely on welfare-- that was you, remember? Just those who are in violation of our laws. 4. That's not reason for kicking people out. It's reason for not letting them in in the first place. Sneaking in is reason for kicking people out.
quote:Evasion. The fact of the matter is that they do have the paychecks, whether you like it or not, and they earned them the same way as any other citizen. That's their money that they earned fairly.
Breaking our laws is not earning money FAIRLY just like selling dope on the black market is not earning money FAIRLY. Lying, cheating, or stealing is not earning money FAIRLY, and that's what illegals do.
quote:If you can't see what the difference is between a guy hopping a chain-link fence in middle-of-nowhere-Mexico and someone smashing your window and invading your home, you should seek immediate psychiatric help.
Evasion. What is the difference?
quote:1. You can't trespass on public property by definition. That's why it's PUBLIC PROPERTY.
It belongs to the AMERICAN public, not the MEXICAN public. From www.dictionary.com :
TRESPASS: Law. To commit an unlawful injury to the person, property, or rights of another, with actual or implied force or violence, especially to enter onto another's land wrongfully.
Hm. Enter another's land wrongfully... So then: America's collective property + illegals = TRESPASSING
quote:2. The historical references are very relevant, since you're claiming that we have some sort of sacred and inalienable right to American soil, which is a crock of crap since it was gained by utterly brutal and immoral means.
Who said anything about sacred and inalienable rights? I was talking about earned rights. Americans treated the Indians brutally, which was not right, but they did lay claims to the land (something the natives never did) and they defended those claims, often with force. They then spent hundreds of years building our country into what it is. This is the way nation-building has always been. I still fail to see the immediate relevance to our discussion.
quote:You basically adopt the stance of, "the ends justify the means" and then have the gall to accuse me of being a moral relativist?
You were the one who said that stealing is okay if it feeds a starving child. The "ends justify the means" indeed.
quote:The law is based on morality. How the fek can this continue to elude you? The law is not a morally neutral statement. It is a moral statement by definition. The laws against killing, stealing, and raping are in place because as a society we feel these are immoral actions.
Yes, those laws are based in morality. Immigration laws are not. How does this elude you?
quote:Any law not motivated by a desire to enforce morality is a stupid law, and one that has no place being in existence.
Nations can't survive solely on moral guidance. If you're under that delusion, another year of lower level social studies might be in order.
quote:According to your bizarre interpretation of legality, we should start passing laws saying that it's perfectly legal to sell drugs to minors for outrageous prices, because it would be good for the economy.
Your ideology comes closest to drug legalization-- after all, it's a "victimless" crime, right? And anything that doesn't do immediate and obvious damage to another person (illegal immigration... drug use) is perfectly acceptable. Isn't that what you've been saying all along?
quote:You know that you haven't got a moral leg to stand on, so you are trying to define the law as some sort of political/economic tool in an effort to evade the point, and deny that law has any relation to morality at all, when morality is in the fact the essence of any good legal system.
Wrong. There are different reasons for different laws-- society needs all kinds of laws. Stop trying to turn legitimate laws into personal crusades.
quote:News Flash: Even with immigration laws in effect, the events of 9/11 still occured. Immigration laws aren't magic. If you think that you can prevent terrorists from getting into the country simply because it is illegal for them to do so, you're simply being deliberatly naive.
News Flash: If our immigration laws were actively enforced, many of the hijackers would not have remained in our country for the chance to murder. Some of their visas were fraudulent, some were expired, and at least one of them entered our country with a student visa and failed to show up for a single class. If the INS weren't pitifully weak and on its knees for illegals, 9-11 might have been foiled, or its impact at least reduced. We need to overhaul the INS, fund it, staff it, enable it to regain control of the immigration process. You are naive for suggesting that one security failure is an excuse to get rid of precautions alltogether.
quote:Another News Flash: Immigrants have been pouring into America ever sinced it's been a country. Less than a decade ago, we had a fabulous economy, and since then there have been no significant change in immigration rates, legal or otherwise. To pinpoint immigration as the sole, or even major force on the economy is absurd.
I never said they were the sole force on the economy. I said more jobs and higher wages would be a benefit to enforcing immigration laws.
quote:Morals are intrinsic to this, as I described above. Without morals, you're simply stating that "the ends justify the means," and anything which benefits our economy is A-OK, since "subjective moral standards" are not allowed to enter the discussion.
You have yet to explain what about immigration laws pertains to morality. I am not saying "the ends justify the means"; you are. You are saying that the ends (a paying American job) justify the means (breaking into our country). This is one more failing attempt for you to blame me for your own words.
quote:Translation:The ends justify the means. Morality of an action is irrelevant as long as it aids our economy. Our good friends the Nazis subscribed to this particular idealogy.
And, as I've already described, your ideology seems particularly similar to that of "our good friends". It's okay to steal if you have less, and it's okay to immigrate illegally if you end up with a paying job. Just a couple examples of the ends justifying the means, and of the pot calling the kettle black.
quote:There is temporary economic damage being done with a long-term benefit to the economy if the immigrants move over completely. That's obviously what I meant if you think about it for longer than 5 seconds, and I grow tired of these evasions.
And I grow tired of the inaccurate analogies, the self-contradictions, the hypocrisy, the pretentious tone, the finger-pointing... It appears I put more thought into my replies than do you.
quote:Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I say to form convulted strawmans?
I didn't interpret what you said, I quoted it.
quote:The point of that statement was obviously that there are certain laws that are good and prevent serious harm, and that is the basis of a good law. Also, there are justifications for murder, namely self-defense. How the hell you pulled, "Sivad thinks murdering people is ok" out of that, I have no idea.
I didn't have to pull anything out of it. It was intrinsically implied. You said that a good rule would be "Don't kill anyone for no reason", and I pointed out that most people do have reasons, and so that rule would technically justify most murder. Then I asked for clarification, because I did not believe that was what you intended to say. You try to justify your error by accusing me of twisting your words. Just argue your point.
quote:You're still using your circular logic of, "Laws are legitimate because they're laws," you're just changing the wording around. Explain why the law is legitimate, beyond your myopic view of, "it helps our economy."
I think the reasons I've given are good enough.
The United States has the power to regulate immigration, legal or otherwise. We have established laws to protect our economic, security, and social interests. We have the right to enforce those laws in order to preserve our economy, society, and security. Illegals are undermining our laws, and indeed American interests, and therefore we are justified in sending them home when they come here illegitimately.
Your turn.
And in response to that flawed summary:
1. I feel that immigration laws do not require a moral component, but rather an socio-economic/political one. And Sivad has yet to demonstrate otherwise.
2. I feel that deportation is absolutely reasonable punishment for entering our country illegally.
quote:1. Simply disregarding any laws you disagree with is not part of the democratic process, however. So if you flex your ability to disobey the law, don't be disillusioned when America exercises its right to punish you accordingly.
America has no innate right to punish me if I violate a silly and frivolous law, like the ones prohibiting certain types of sexual behavior in Southern States. Or do you really think that prison time is suitable punishment for something like sodomy? The fact of the matter is, there are stupid laws, and they have no business being on the books or enforced.
quote:2. Immigration laws are in place for a reason, which I have hashed out repeatedly for you. I have already demonstrated how the laws protect the interests of our country.
The only thing you have "repeatedly hashed out" is a slightly negative effect on our economy. This is hardly repayable by deportion. By this logic, all people on Welfare or evading taxes should be immediately deported, since they are having a negative effect on our economy.
quote:3. You have yet to put forth any "compelling" evidence that illegal immigrants are entitled to job opportunities in America. Where is your objective argument for that?
What? You're the one saying illegals shouldn't be allowed to have jobs; the burden of proof is on you to justify that statement. If this were an argument on abortion, and you were saying the practice should be banned, the onus of proof is on you to state why, not for me to create a compelling case for it. Obviously there's a good reason for it already, since people are already doing it.
quote:I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times. I am not discussing morality here, because it is irrelevant. Morality is not the law of our nation, and it is largely subjective, especially in the case of moral relativists such as yourself. To stray from the topic of our discussion and answer that last question: I don't think stealing, or otherwise violating another person or entity's rights, is ever justified by circumstance.
Morality is not irrelevant by any stretch of the imagination; indeed, it is the core of all laws. We don't pass laws to make economic or social points, we pass them on almost purely moral grounds. I can't believe I have to spell this out for you.
Or are you going to argue that laws against killing, stealing, and rape have no moral basis whatsoever and are merely used to enforce economic policies? We have laws governing trade and businesses that place bans on unethical practices in those fields. How do we define what's unethical? Ding ding ding! Morality. I can't believe you're actually claiming that morality is irrelevant to this issue.
I would also like to know on what grounds you label me a, "moral relativist." My moral system is based on the very simple concepts that life/pleasure is good and death/suffering is bad. It is hardly "relative." I also take it by your last statement that you would not steal the food to feed your starving children. If you can't see that your childrens' right to life far outweighs the property rights of someone else, you're the one in need of some moral schooling.
quote:That's ludicrous.
1. Indians didn't believe in the concept of private land ownership, so they did not claim it as "their land".
2. White Europeans and their black slaves made this country what it is today, and I think that gives them claims over it. If your brain is any bigger than a peanut, you shouldn't find that so "intellectually staggering".
3. Ruthless or not, they fought for this country, and they won. It was the doctrine of the time, and it wasn't in violation of existing laws.
What an excellent example of moral relativism. "It's not ok now, but back then it didn't violate any laws, therefore it was OK." You seem to be under the hilarious delusion that morality is defined by law, instead of the other way around.
quote:I would call it morally neutral, and politically and economically justified. And you're very welcome.
Kicking someone out of a country for purely economic reasons is "morally neutral" eh? How would you feel if you lost your job and were kicked out of your town, because you had to subsist on Welfare for awhile. After all, you're having a negative effect on the economy, and by your own statements you feel that is plenty enough reason to kick someone out.
quote:They shouldn't have the paychecks in the first place; I don't see a need to carry it out any further than that.
Evasion. The fact of the matter is that they do have the paychecks, whether you like it or not, and they earned them the same way as any other citizen. That's their money that they earned fairly. The fact that you think they "shouldn't be here in the first place" doesn't change the fact they did equal work, so they received equal pay. By sending money to their impoverished families all they're doing is slightly pricking the behemoth that is the American economy, just like I would do if I chose to send some of my paycheck to a starving child in Africa.
quote:They are intruding on our national property. The analogy still stands. I have explained how they do damage to our country. By the way, you seem to like to throw around the term "imaginary line" a lot; Are you to imply that illegals don't realize they are crossing any border?
If you can't see what the difference is between a guy hopping a chain-link fence in middle-of-nowhere-Mexico and someone smashing your window and invading your home, you should seek immediate psychiatric help.
quote:1. Trespassing on land belonging to the American public.
2. What's your point? That's how countries like Mexico got their land too. The fact is, our policies have evolved, and laws have been created, and your historical references are utterly pointless in this discussion.
1. You can't trespass on public property by definition. That's why it's PUBLIC PROPERTY.
2. The historical references are very relevant, since you're claiming that we have some sort of sacred and inalienable right to American soil, which is a crock of crap since it was gained by utterly brutal and immoral means.
You basically adopt the stance of, "the ends justify the means" and then have the gall to accuse me of being a moral relativist?
quote:I'm still waiting for you to comprehend what I'm saying when I tell you that I am not discussing moral relativism with you. I am talking about the law, which in this case, as I said before, is morally neutral and politically and economically justified. You are blissfully ignoring what I'm saying to cling to your single weak argument.
The law is based on morality. How the fek can this continue to elude you? The law is not a morally neutral statement. It is a moral statement by definition. The laws against killing, stealing, and raping are in place because as a society we feel these are immoral actions.
Any law not motivated by a desire to enforce morality is a stupid law, and one that has no place being in existence. According to your bizarre interpretation of legality, we should start passing laws saying that it's perfectly legal to sell drugs to minors for outrageous prices, because it would be good for the economy.
You know that you haven't got a moral leg to stand on, so you are trying to define the law as some sort of political/economic tool in an effort to evade the point, and deny that law has any relation to morality at all, when morality is in the fact the essence of any good legal system.
quote:Key phrase there: a whole bunch. It's the massive number of them that is seeing significant effects on the economy. As far as security goes, it only takes a few immigrants slipping between the cracks of the system to hijack a few planes or set off a few bombs or begin training and plotting in the U.S. If we open our borders, we will have no hopes of keeping such terrorists and other security threats out of our country.
News Flash: Even with immigration laws in effect, the events of 9/11 still occured. Immigration laws aren't magic. If you think that you can prevent terrorists from getting into the country simply because it is illegal for them to do so, you're simply being deliberatly naive.
Another News Flash: Immigrants have been pouring into America ever sinced it's been a country. Less than a decade ago, we had a fabulous economy, and since then there have been no significant change in immigration rates, legal or otherwise. To pinpoint immigration as the sole, or even major force on the economy is absurd.
quote:Again with the morals. I'm not basing my arguments on my own personal and subjective moral standards.
quote:Morals, morals, morals. Your ideology sounds like global socialism.
Morals are intrinsic to this, as I described above. Without morals, you're simply stating that "the ends justify the means," and anything which benefits our economy is A-OK, since "subjective moral standards" are not allowed to enter the discussion.
quote:I do. Our economy is not in great shape right now, and it's very important that we improve it in any way we can.
Translation:The ends justify the means. Morality of an action is irrelevant as long as it aids our economy. Our good friends the Nazis subscribed to this particular idealogy.
quote:So is there economic damage being done, as you say in the first sentence, or is the economy better, as you imply in the last sentence? Make up your mind, and then I'll argue.
There is temporary economic damage being done with a long-term benefit to the economy if the immigrants move over completely. That's obviously what I meant if you think about it for longer than 5 seconds, and I grow tired of these evasions.
quote:"Don't kill people for no reason"??? Few people kill for no reason. Are you saying murder is justified if the guy borrowed money and didn't return it? Or if someone cheated on a spouse? Sounds like anarchy to me.
Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I say to form convulted strawmans? The point of that statement was obviously that there are certain laws that are good and prevent serious harm, and that is the basis of a good law. Also, there are justifications for murder, namely self-defense. How the hell you pulled, "Sivad thinks murdering people is ok" out of that, I have no idea.
quote:Immigration laws aren't legitimate because they're laws; they're laws because they're legitimate.
You're still using your circular logic of, "Laws are legitimate because they're laws," you're just changing the wording around. Explain why the law is legitimate, beyond your myopic view of, "it helps our economy."
Oh, and lastly,
quote:Xia wrote: Do not bother refuting me; I do not care.
I am always amused by the irony when people post specifically to tell me that they do not care. Apparently, you cared enough to write up your diatribe about my post, and now think I am under some obligation to obey your imperious decree of not replying. Too bad, so sad.
You completely missed the point of my car-door analogy. The point of an analogy is not to show that it is similar to the current situation, but to point out a flaw in your opponent's logic by showing what happens when they follow it in all instances.
You constantly harp on laws, completely oblivious to the fact that a law can just as easily be used for evil and oppression as for good and social welfare. Your entire position can be summarized by the statement, "Law, therefore, Good." This is a TEXTBOOK case of Appeal to Authority, which is a formal logical fallacy.
I realize these posts are swelling to an ungodly length, so I'll summarize.
SUMMARY:
1. madpuffinkeeper feels that good laws do not require a moral component, only an economic/political one.
2. madpuffinkeeper feels that forcibly deporting someone is a reasonable punishment for the crime of daring to cross an imaginary line and work an honest job.
3. Xia feels that if something is a law, it is, by definition, utterly perfect and no one has any place to argue with it, since it was probably thought up by people "a lot smarter than you."
Pepsi, Sprite, whatever your name is- We have had open hearts for the 100 years. Allowing an illegal immigrant into this country is the same thing as bringing cocain into this country, it's plan and simply illegal. My half cousin just moved here from Sweden and is already up if he hasn't already gotten citizenship. He applied over summer. So what is this problem with American Immigration Laws.
About a year or two ago my mom went shopping at some store. When she got up to a cash register this Asian lady stood saying something in a mix of Phillipino and English. When my mom asked here what she said, the lady flipped out saying how she should understand what she was saying that she couldn't say it any clearer, some BS like that. This just shows that these immigrants as they gain in number are colonizing America. Instead of conforming to American society these people want us to conform to their customs. That's BS.
'Our statue,that stands proudly,says this.If we didn't mean it,why would it be there? We are supposed to be free,and anyone who chooses to live here,even if they weren't born here,should have the same rights.So why are people denying this..and saying that immagrants should not be allowed here? Why are we refusing to accept people from other countries? Think about it.If we go back far enough,we're all from different countries.'
Yeah, but back then they also tested the immigrants for dieseases, yet we don't do that in this new age of Political correctness. We couldn't be poltically incorrect to save our own *****.
Also, there comes a point where enough is enough. Right now our schools are being over crowed, and so are our hospitals. Also we a giving the Mexicans our money (ie welfare), and they are sending it across the boarder to familes and that money is comming out of our economy. I mean we might as well flush all of that welfare money down the toliet it's useless to us.
I think that the ultimate problem is all of the government projects we are running on the side. I don't think we can support both a high immigrant popuation and the poor and elderly and the disabled. We are going to have to get rid one or the others.
quote: my favorite book was cronicles of narnia (lion the witch and the wadrobe). yall should read it.
C.S. Lewis is an excellent author...his Chronicles of Narnia are Christian allegory; did you notice? I read them when I was younger, and loved them. He also wrote some other Christian apologetics, and a sci-fi trilogy, I believe (not sure about the sci-fi, though)...but the apologetics I've read most of. Mere Christianity comes to mind. It defends the Christian religion...you might enjoy it. Love, Jen.
i think books bans are stupid bc we have free speech and pressed. my favorite book was cronicles of narnia (lion the witch and the wadrobe). yall should read it.
i think books bans are stupid bc we have free speech and pressed. my favorite book was cronicles of narnia (lion the witch and the wadrobe). yall should read it.
Topics 
