Is it fair?

[narsasistickx]

I have come to draw attention to the D.R.E.A.M. Act, which has failed to pass the first stages of "becoming a bill". The basics of this bill is to allow children of "illegal's" in the United States to become perminant residents and eventually a path to citizenship. The bill introduces a couple ways of doing so, either through military service, 2year college, community service, and there may be some other ways, but basicly one must be of good moral character.

[V Profane]

I'm speaking out of ignorance here, clearly, but, I get the impression that Americans are very 'free market', and you have a minimal 'welfare state'. So I'm slightly puzzled by anti-immigrant sentiment in what is supposed to be a melting-pot and land of opportunity. I understand racial, class, and general not-in-my-backyard prejudice, I'm guilty of all of those no doubt, but still.

The big thing here in the UK at the moment is 'New' (eastern) Europeans economically migrating. Aside from a woman with a moustache trying to sell me some dodgy gold out the back of a beemer with foreign plates, my experience of the, mainly Polish, immigrants is overwhelmingly positive. I am usually pissed, though. Anyway, I know full well that it's not Tomasz from Wroclaw that's getting a free house and fucking taking the piss out of civilised socity, it's that fucking scabby bell-end from my year at school who knocked up his step-sister at 13 will never do a legitimate days work and make life considerably less bearable for all those who are unfortunate enough to cross his path.

See? I told you I was prejudiced.

[Meliora]

I'm speaking out of ignorance here, clearly, but, I get the impression that Americans are very 'free market', and you have a minimal 'welfare state'. So I'm slightly puzzled by anti-immigrant sentiment in what is supposed to be a melting-pot and land of opportunity. I understand racial, class, and general not-in-my-backyard prejudice, I'm guilty of all of those no doubt, but still.

I don't get the sense that Americans are anti-immigrant as much as they are against immigrants coming here illegally and using our services/welfare programs without paying the taxes and such that fund them. I think most Americans are generally accepting of an immigrant person/family who wants to come here in order to start a new/better life and all that, as long as they don't break any (or atleast not too many?) laws in doing so.

Of course I, as an American, may be speaking out of ignorance here.:happpy:

OFF TOPIC: Also, I'd like to state that I'm fairly annoyed with the America-and-all-things-related-to-it bashing coming from both those outside the country as well as within. It's fine to dissent, but so much of it seems to be based on senseless group thought and will not get any of us anywhere.

[V Profane]

OFF TOPIC: Also, I'd like to state that I'm fairly annoyed with the America-and-all-things-related-to-it bashing coming from both those outside the country as well as within. It's fine to dissent, but so much of it seems to be based on senseless group thought and will not get any of us anywhere.

I'm interested in your 'within' part.

You're right, that does make me sound like a pervert.

[C.J.Woolf]

All the focus is on the supply side (illegal immigrants), but what about the demand side? They are here because Americans are hiring them for wages that Americans won't accept. The illegals themselves are exploited like hell. I'd say the real beneficiaries are, in order: (1) the employers, who get cheap labor, and (2) American consumers, who get lower prices. So, most Americans are complicit in the "problem" of illegal immigration. In the coming "war" on illegal immigration, many individual immigrants, illegal and legal, will get screwed, but the illegal immigrant economy will not be affected much. It'll be like the "war" on drugs in that respect.

[ajblaise]

I think it's clear that a huge subset of Americans are "anti-immigrant", and for three main reasons: xenophobia, the though of terrorists sneaking in (a heavily promoted thought) and the thought that derr taeik errr jeerrbs.

Rural-dwellers, conservatives basically.

[Oso Mocoso]

The illegals themselves are exploited like hell. I'd say the real beneficiaries are, in order: (1) the employers, who get cheap labor, and (2) American consumers, who get lower prices.

Eh. Every economics class I've attended which addressed this issue seems to tell me it's pretty close to breaking even. Illegal immigrants to the USA pay some taxes (ie: sales tax) and they don't pay other taxes (ie: income tax). However, they also consume fewer social services than legal immigrants do. In general, illegal immigrants avoid contact with the government. This means they're less of a burden on the society. So ... in the end, they're not really costing the tax payers much by their presence, but they're also not contributing much. Do I really care if they're here or not? No. Do ignorant people who are xenophobic care if they're here? Yes. Then again, I'm multilingual and I speak Spanish, so I can talk with the maids and janitors. Mostly, they're fine people in my opinion.

--Oso

[V Profane]

I can talk with the maids and janitors. Mostly, they're fine people in my opinion.

Polar bears speak Spanish? What a time to be alive!

But, yeah, that correlates with my anecdotal experience too.

[Oso Mocoso]

Polar bears speak Spanish? What a time to be alive!


Yeah, a freak ass polar bear who is ethnically northern European who lives in the U.S. by way of Central America tends to speak Spanish. Me and ... really, I'd love to know? Although, I've met a bunch of blonde haired, blue-eyed Costa Ricans, so maybe I'm less of an aberration than you might think.

--Oso

[V Profane]

maybe I'm less of an aberration than you might think.

Not in G_d's eyes.

[booyalab]

They are here because Americans are hiring them for wages that Americans won't accept. They're here because Americans are hiring them for wages that POLITICIANS won't accept.

[ajblaise]

They're here because Americans are hiring them for wages that POLITICIANS won't accept.

i'm not saying this doesn't make sense, but could you explain a little bit more about what point your trying to make? I can't catch on. The government and politicians are pushed out.. of the process of illegals getting hired by Americans, they have all little to do with what's happening. No?

[lowtech redneck]

I'm not certain myself, but I think its mostly a matter of perceived divided allegiance and lack of assimilation. Remember, a crucial aspect of the whole melting pot ideal is for Americans to consider the United States as their only national allegiance and English as their mother tongue (the latter only applies to the descendants of immigrants, of course, though everyone is expected to learn the language).

Every massive influx of immigrants that substantially differed from the prevailing cultural norm has been viewed with wariness by the natives (who are themselves the product of previous cross-assimilations) until their children or grandchildren have inter-married with the children or grandchildren of the native population. Then the process starts all over again.

Most everyone here already knows that, but modern transportation and telecommunications combined with the celebration of multiculturalism (not to be confused with cross-assimilation, aka the melting pot) are feared to perpetuate divided loyalties among recent immigrants, especially those from Mexico. I'm not entirely immune from this worry myself, but draconian immigration policies only backfire; instead of traveling back and forth between the two countries, illegal immigrants have little choice but to smuggle their families into this country and live under the radar. This just adds millions of culturally segregated immigrants.

Oh, and contractors/landscapers hate them for doing jobs natives WILL actually do, but at three times the price. And the immigrants actually finish the work on time.

[booyalab]

i'm not saying this doesn't make sense, but could you explain a little bit more about what point your trying to make? I can't catch on. The government and politicians are pushed out.. of the process of illegals getting hired by Americans, they have all little to do with what's happening. No? I'm talking about minimum wage laws.

[ajblaise]

I'm talking about minimum wage laws.

Okay, that's one of the things i thougt you might be alluding to...

Now I'm pretty sure you don't think they are here because we have minimum wage laws.. but what do you really think will happen if we get rid of min. wage laws in concern to the millions crossing the border? We'll still be the richest country in the world, and we'll still have rich Americans who want the cheapest work they can get. Mexicans are poor... The main equation of why they are coming is still there.

[Ptah]

(I'm likely to get blasted for this, but I've gotta say what I've gotta say.)

I was born in America, and I've lived there my entire life. Even so, I don't necessarily call myself "an American" in the sense that I've seen others take the term to mean. I'm making this qualification to establish that what I'm going to say next isn't as "an American" -- isn't about any "American" political agenda or another that I agree with, espouse, or participate in, any "American" economic paradigm or another that I advocate, or any "American" cultural ideal that I hold true or favorable -- nor with any particular "American" opinion of any enrichment or pollution to any of the above -- or any other "American" concept whatsoever -- that others may claim occurs as a result of "illegal immigration". What I'm about to say speaks in terms of principles that I believe are universal in any form of governed social order, from tribes to nations.


I don't get the sense that Americans are anti-immigrant as much as they are against immigrants coming here illegally and using our services/welfare programs without paying the taxes and such that fund them. I think most Americans are generally accepting of an immigrant person/family who wants to come here in order to start a new/better life and all that, as long as they don't break any (or atleast not too many?) laws in doing so.


I am a citizen of a nation who cannot abide others that enter my nation without doing so in accordance with it's procedures and laws for doing so.

It has been argued that our procedures/laws are unduly difficult, that they inspire, perhaps justly beget circumvention. Whether or not that is the case is irrelevant to the fact that illegal immigrants take a calculated risk when they enter this nation athwart due lawful, process (just or not). They know what they are doing may have consequences, regardless of the justice behind them. They know what they are gettng into when they circumvent our laws and processes, and if they do not, it does not excuse them from the responsibility of knowing, nor from the consequences due upon them -- deportation.

This is a matter of principle. This is our nation, this is our land. Upon it, we its citizens uphold a body of laws (through either chosen action in support, or defaulting to do the contrary) -- and it is our right to do so, and to set the manner in which consequences are taken when transgressions are proven to have occured against them. The same can be said of a man's home, or a tribe's land, or that of a nation. House rules rule, arbitrary or not, with respect to outsiders. The argument that one illegally entered a nation because one had no other means to do so is not a grounds for claiming citizenship, or services reserved for citizens, or accomodation, exoneration, or integration.

Regardless of the economic, political, cultural or other "realities" involved in immediately, and without concession, deporting (or, through use of/threat of force, inspiring self-deportation) all those who, by way of our laws, should be deported, the principle must be upheld. To default in doing so, to default in taking the action prescribed by law upon transgressors of the law, we are in effect damning ourselvesin a much larger, practical, "real" way-- we are saying "to hell with our laws, to hell with our citizens; world, come on in" -- a gruesomely impractical reality, to say nothing of the blunder in national integrity. Nationally, we erode; we in effect sanction those who defy our laws. If we as a nation cannot survive the means by which we uphold and execute our laws, regardless of practical circumstances that might suggest "bending" them, we as a nation do not deserve to exist, nor do we have much of a prospect for the future should we refuse to accept this way of thinking. Self-preservation is a part of life -- of all life -- and so should be a part of life-in-aggregation, in nations.

I believe the preceding applies to all nations, any nation, not just the United States of America. It is my belief because I hold it to be principally correct and objectively rational.

[Oso Mocoso]

If we as a nation cannot survive the means by which we uphold and execute our laws, regardless of practical circumstances that might suggest "bending" them, we as a nation do not deserve to exist, nor do we have much of a prospect for the future should we refuse to accept this way of thinking.

Or we could just change our laws to be not retarded.

That would be cool too.

--Oso

[Delilah]

Or we could just change our laws to be not retarded.

That would be cool too.

--Oso

I would vote for that:highfive:

[Lateralus]

Or we could just change our laws to be not retarded.
Please elaborate.

[macr0]

America's immigration laws are baloney, but I don't think this Bill would do much anyway. Children of illegals born across the border are already nationalized.

My main beef with American's immigration policy is it's inequality. Depending on where you are from, the requirements for citizenship are vastly different.

I think that an open door policy on the southern border is a disheartening for immigrants from other parts of the world trying to work through the system.

On the other hand, the sheer volume of Latin American immigrants does require special consideration.

One thing I do know is that Oklahoma's recent draconian tactics is not the right direction.

[Zephyrus055]

In my opinion, most immigrants, regardless of class, race or gender, at least initially, establish themselves as competing factions in relation to the native population. The reason is that, due to challenges with communication and culture, they need to rely on alliances with people similar to themselves. This creates groups and communities comprising of immigrants, and the cooperation and common identity between them is perceived as competition by the native population. Subsequently, the native population desires to control that competition. Personally, I am not going to bash people for it, because I think it is something to be expected and factored in to when attempting to bridge divides between populations.

[AKULACLASS]

I personally think that the Mexicans have more legitimate claim to America than the Caucasoid majority. What we know of as America is a vast country that was illegally seized by the European ancestors of its present inhabitants. The majority Caucasians and other immigrant groups can't make a legal claim to the land.

Some Central and South Americans and most Native Americans could make the claim of being related to the original natives of America. Caucasian Americans can only make a 'might is right' (we conquered it so it's ours) claim, not a legal one.

[Zephyrus055]

I personally think that the Mexicans have more legitimate claim to America than the Caucasoid majority. What we know of as America is a vast country that was illegally seized by the European ancestors of its present inhabitants. The majority Caucasians and other immigrant groups can't make a legal claim to the land.

Some Central and South Americans and most Native Americans could make the claim of being related to the original natives of America. Caucasian Americans can only make a 'might is right' (we conquered it so it's ours) claim, not a legal one.

First two rules of political science.

Since there is no central authority to create and enforce an international law (The UN doesn't count btw) between states, no exercise of political power can be considered internationally illegal.
Power in relation of country to country and the exercise of it is the chief reason for the political status quo.

But yes, might is right is really the only valid reason, and it is a very valid one too in fact.

[AKULACLASS]

First two rules of political science.
Since there is no central authority to create and enforce an international law (The UN doesn't count btw) between states, no exercise of political power can be considered internationally illegal.
Power in relation of country to country and the exercise of it is the chief reason for the political status quo.

I know. I am an international relations major. I was arguing from a moral perspective. It is not popular on the international stage.

[Zephyrus055]

I know. I am an international relations major. I was arguing from a moral perspective. It is not popular on the international stage.
Oh ok, fair enough. Nevertheless, moral arguments are used by elites to justify their exercise of power and enforce conformity, but they can all ways be shot down by a trained logician.

[Lateralus]

I personally think that the Mexicans have more legitimate claim to America than the Caucasoid majority. What we know of as America is a vast country that was illegally seized by the European ancestors of its present inhabitants. The majority Caucasians and other immigrant groups can't make a legal claim to the land.

Some Central and South Americans and most Native Americans could make the claim of being related to the original natives of America. Caucasian Americans can only make a 'might is right' (we conquered it so it's ours) claim, not a legal one.
Really? A large number of "Caucasians" that I know have some native American blood (myself included). Then again, native Americans are not really native to America either. They crossed the Bering Strait thousands of years ago. They're really Africans, just like everyone else.

This sounds like the BS arguments made by Arabs and Israelis to make some sort of moral claim to Palestine.

[earwax]

My understanding is that if you are born on American soil, you are a citizen... Even if your parents are here illegally.

[Oso Mocoso]

Please elaborate.

A couple of particularly retarded immigration laws:

* If you pop out a kid as an illegal, the kid's a citizen and you're not. Therefore if you get busted, it's quite possible within the law that your kid becomes a ward of the state and you get deported sans kid.

* If you're a college student, and something goes wrong with your student visa, you have to return to your home country to refile the paperwork for the visa. This most frequently causes college students to just say fuck it and stay in the USA illegally. Since it's so unlikely they'll actually get busted, this is the rational response to the request.

* Favoring immigrants from some countries over others simply by virtue of national origin isn't very sensible. Favoring them on some more logical rationale like job skills/education/etc. would at least make sense.

I could go on. I've met plenty of productive and well educated people who are in the country illegally. I know just as many people who had to endure long stretches of time apart from their families to immigrate legally. For instance, a friend of mine is a Canadian who can't go visit his parents in Canada because of restrictions on his green card. Why? I guess they just want to make him jump through a bunch of hoops to become a U.S. citizen. He owns a house here, so he'd be screwed if they deported him.

--Oso

[Lateralus]

A couple of particularly retarded immigration laws:

* If you pop out a kid as an illegal, the kid's a citizen and you're not. Therefore if you get busted, it's quite possible within the law that your kid becomes a ward of the state and you get deported sans kid.
Yeah, that. The US should do like Australia and require at least one parent to be a citizen in order for the child to be granted citizenship. The anchor baby laws encourage illegal immigration.


* If you're a college student, and something goes wrong with your student visa, you have to return to your home country to refile the paperwork for the visa. This most frequently causes college students to just say fuck it and stay in the USA illegally. Since it's so unlikely they'll actually get busted, this is the rational response to the request.
That one doesn't make sense, but that doesn't account for a significant percentage of illegal immigrants in this country.


* Favoring immigrants from some countries over others simply by virtue of national origin isn't very sensible. Favoring them on some more logical rationale like job skills/education/etc. would at least make sense.
That depends on what you consider to be sensible. (not that I agree)


I could go on. I've met plenty of productive and well educated people who are in the country illegally. I know just as many people who had to endure long stretches of time apart from their families to immigrate legally. For instance, a friend of mine is a Canadian who can't go visit his parents in Canada because of restrictions on his green card. Why? I guess they just want to make him jump through a bunch of hoops to become a U.S. citizen. He owns a house here, so he'd be screwed if they deported him.
US citizenship is in high demand, despite all of our problems.

[C.J.Woolf]

Here's an article (http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/11/13/the-10-minute-immigration-debate/#more-12881) that argues that the #1 reason so many Mexicans come to the US for work is NAFTA:


The first thing to realize is that it appears that the majority of illegal immigration is from Mexico, and that when you add in Latin America you?re up to about 80%. So when we?re talking about illegal immigration, we?re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Latin America.

The biggest single reason is that Mexican agriculture was smashed by NAFTA (Duke mentions this but throws it in with such a large laundry list that it gets buried), so you have a lot of Mexicans who need jobs. That?s not all that?s going on, but it?s probably the largest part of it.

Why? Because US agriculture is massively subsidized (when you make something too cheap, you get? overproduction) at levels the 3rd world can?t compete with and we?ve forced them to remove their tariff barriers and encouraged them to concentrate on cash crops that can?t easily be grown in the US/Europe/Canada.

What?s remarkable about immigration isn?t that there?s so much of it, but that there?s so little of it. Italy in the 19th century, for example, suffered an absolute population drain because there was so much emigration to the new world, and that is with a much smaller wage differential. We aren?t seeing as much immigration yet as we should.

US trade policy, for some time, has simultaneously destroyed 3rd world agriculture, leading to huge population dislocation and devastated the industrial working class in the US. Unfortunately almost no one works in American agriculture, while there used to be huge numbers of manufacturing export workers. Many third world (read, Latin American and Mexican) farmers who lost their livelihood then headed north to the US.

The US has an immigration problem, in short, because it?s rich and other countries are poor. More than this it has an immigration problem because large numbers of people, primarily subsistence farmers, have lost their livelihood. If they were all poor but still had their farms and livelihood, they wouldn?t need to head north. This is a direct result of US, and indeed western trade and development policies as carried out by the IMF, the World Bank and various other alphabet soup agencies.
Blowback from US policy, in other words. But the cynics in government who made that policy can rest assured that the nativist hotheads will never blame them for it; they'll blame the immigrants instead.


They're here because Americans are hiring them for wages that POLITICIANS won't accept.
The politicians are doing their job this time -- establishing an economic floor so there won't be a race to the bottom in the (US citizen) labor market.

[Ptah]

If we as a nation cannot survive the means by which we uphold and execute our laws, regardless of practical circumstances that might suggest "bending" them, we as a nation do not deserve to exist, nor do we have much of a prospect for the future should we refuse to accept this way of thinking.


Or we could just change our laws to be not retarded.

That would be cool too.

--Oso

Yes, that would be cool. But I would assert that this is not an or relationship.

Am I the only one who feels that those who immigrate into a nation athwart it's immigration laws (regardless how arbitrary or unjust) are deserving of nothing from that nation other than an initially peaceful deportation process? That if, regardless of their moral or (short-sightedly, if at all) practical claims to sanction and/or exoneration, they refuse to peacefully leave or be deported, that they are to be treated as would any other invasion. That if they raise arms (or merely threaten so) against the nation, they are to be considered enemies, perhaps even "enemies combatant?" That these ideas extend naturally and unequivocally from a necessarily practical (although not fundamental) political axiom of "house rules rule (with respect to foreigners)?"

Now. I would say that we as a nation have a responsibility to form immigration laws (in particular to the topic at hand, but in general as well) that are "fair". This is not in question, for reasons that go largely off topic but are just as evident and necessary, morally and practically, as the preceding assertions.

As I see it, we the citizens of the United States of America have failed to form anything resembling "fair" immigration laws. But that does not negate our responsibility to uphold those laws. It certainly does, however, suggest that we revise them. But even should we do so, that does not automatically exonerate existing illegal immigrants. As a matter of principle, we must treat them in accordance with the laws that were in effect at the time they transgressed them.

In short, I believe we need to deal with illegal immigrants as has been asserted above and revise our laws -- each to serve the greater prosperity and long-term self-preservation of our (already degenerate) nation.

[narsasistickx]

You guys missed the point completely this is not about illegal immigrants this is about the children the kids man. Its for the KIDS!
The children who came along with the parents of illegal citizens are getting punished unfairly for something their parents did. They cannot gain citizenship at the moment, as there is no path to doing so. The DREAM act is a means for these kids to gain acces to perminant, and eventually U.S citizenship. I mean is it fair to punish kids? Or should they join the pot of illegals in this country.

Excuse my bad spelling/grammar class starts in like 1minute lol

[Oso Mocoso]

That if, regardless of their moral or (short-sightedly, if at all) practical claims to sanction and/or exoneration, they refuse to peacefully leave that they are to be treated as would any other invasion. That if they raise arms (or merely threaten so) against the nation, they are to be considered enemies, perhaps even "enemies combatant?"

Yeah, because someone coming to the United States to wash dishes in exchange for $2.50/hour is the same thing as a foreign invasion.

Ptah, let me say this. I like you, but right now you're being an idiot.

Have you been drinking?

--Oso

[Sierim]

You guys missed the point completely this is not about illegal immigrants this is about the children the kids man. Its for the KIDS!
The children who came along with the parents of illegal citizens are getting punished unfairly for something their parents did. They cannot gain citizenship at the moment, as there is no path to doing so. The DREAM act is a means for these kids to gain acces to perminant, and eventually U.S citizenship. I mean is it fair to punish kids? Or should they join the pot of illegals in this country.

Excuse my bad spelling/grammar class starts in like 1minute lol

I fail to see how refusing to grant citizenship to the child of an illegal immigrant is punishment. The child isn't being punished for his parents' actions, but merely is not being rewarded for said actions (or am I still missing the point?).

[Ptah]

Yeah, because someone coming to the United States to wash dishes in exchange for $2.50/hour is the same thing as a foreign invasion.

Ptah, let me say this. I like you, but right now you're being an idiot.
--Oso

Likewise, but I would counter with the respectful, constructive criticism that you're being short-sighted. Oso, I feel you're missing the forest for the trees, as it applies to the practical consequences of allowing illegal immigrants to come in and do what they're doing.




You guys missed the point completely this is not about illegal immigrants this is about the children the kids man. Its for the KIDS!


If we are going to deport the parent, we could provide the options:

a) child goes home with parent, end of story.
b) child remains in US, effectively an orphan, given that the parents will not be allowed to reside here (and care for their child as they should) without first becoming a valid US citizen.

It then becomes a matter of choice for the to-be deported parent. Stay here illegally and continue the calculated risk for you and your family. Leave, taking your child with you (as you probably should if you're any kind of parent at all). Or, leave with your child in the care of the US; effectively an orphan unless you've arranged otherwise.

That this may be a moral quandry for the deportee, or a perhaps a damnable moral circumstance for us to put them in, does not change the fact that this is the consequence that they deserve, the consequence that they took a calculated (or merely ignorant) risk against, the consquence that we are right and sensible to enforce as a nation.



I fail to see how refusing to grant citizenship to the child of an illegal immigrant is punishment. The child isn't being punished for his parents' actions, but merely is not being rewarded for said actions


I concur. This is not a matter of punishment.

[Zephyrus055]

I think America should be concerned strictly for the welfare of its own people and state, and moreover the law for citizenship should be that you are either born to US parents or are naturalized. And the first requirement to be naturalized is that you must be an asset to the American economy, not because you are seeking asylum, managed to attract a desperate American as he visited your third world village in the boondocks, or any other reason.

[narsasistickx]

Ok considering that the child GROWS of the U.S education system. Masters the language and it becomes his primary way of speaking. Looks, dresses, talks, and hell in essence is an American without the citizenship.
These are the kids i am talking about. I am talking about the kids who graduated from high school want to go to college and pursue a career. Even those who wish to join the Armed Forces of the U.S. Is it fair for them to be punished and barred from citizenship? It’s a complicated situation for the kids of illegal immigrants, because they are part of U.S culture minus their statues which cannot change under the current laws. So the DREAM act is shaping the current laws to grant a path towards citizenship for these people. I am in no way talking about illegal immigrants, but the kids who grew up here that are illegal. Those who where raised here from a young age to adult hood. The young adults that now reside in the U.S who is now titled after their parents, "Illegal". My opinion leans toward granting them a path towards citizenship. Again I am talking about the kids who grew up to be adults. NOT the illegal immigrants who crossed the border, but those who had no choice, and no say!!


Originally Posted by Sierim
I fail to see how refusing to grant citizenship to the child of an illegal immigrant is punishment. The child isn't being punished for his parents' actions, but merely is not being rewarded for said actions
Originally Posted by Ptah
I concur. This is not a matter of punishment.
It is punishment on the child
It follows like this. Child who is now of 18+ is now responsible for his actions. Must leave the U.S, but cannot because his family is in the U.S
He cannot apply for citizenship, because he was not allowed legally into the U.S and has no basis for applying.
The punishment for staying in the U.S is a bann for 10years in which you cannot apply for citizenship or enter the country.
How is that not punishment?

[Zephyrus055]

Ok considering that the child GROWS of the U.S education system. Masters the language and it becomes his primary way of speaking. Looks, dresses, talks, and hell in essence is an American without the citizenship.
These are the kids i am talking about. I am talking about the kids who graduated from high school want to go to college and pursue a career. Even those who wish to join the Armed Forces of the U.S. Is it fair for them to be punished and barred from citizenship? It?s a complicated situation for the kids of illegal immigrants, because they are part of U.S culture minus their statues which cannot change under the current laws. So the DREAM act is shaping the current laws to grant a path towards citizenship for these people. I am in no way talking about illegal immigrants, but the kids who grew up here that are illegal. Those who where raised here from a young age to adult hood. The young adults that now reside in the U.S who is now titled after their parents, "Illegal". My opinion leans toward granting them a path towards citizenship. Again I am talking about the kids who grew up to be adults. NOT the illegal immigrants who crossed the border, but those who had no choice, and no say!!
It is punishment on the child
It follows like this. Child who is now of 18+ is now responsible for his actions. Must leave the U.S, but cannot because his family is in the U.S
He cannot apply for citizenship, because he was not allowed legally into the U.S and has no basis for applying.
The punishment for staying in the U.S is a bann for 10years in which you cannot apply for citizenship or enter the country.
How is that not punishment?
It's punishment and it's not fair, but I don't care.

[Lateralus]

...
I'd rather work on solving our own problems instead of trying to fix Mexico's. Punishment? Maybe, that depends on how you look at it, but life isn't fair and it never will be (despite the best efforts of collectivists).

[narsasistickx]

Posted by Lateralus
I'd rather work on solving our own problems instead of trying to fix Mexico's. Punishment?

Mexico's punishment? Several good reasons have been spotted not directly relating to my question, but still with some relevance.
However do people even care? I mean the DREAM act was going to be introduced as a bill but failed by a couple of votes (needed 60 to pass and got like 52-56 not sure)

[Ptah]

Ok considering that the child GROWS of the U.S education system. Masters the language and it becomes his primary way of speaking. Looks, dresses, talks, and hell in essence is an American without the citizenship.

As I see it, thats gets into semantics in the use of -- and definitions for -- the term "American".

If you take "American" to mean "Citizen of the United States of America" (as I believe seems the most appropriate), then the phrase is a bit of a contradiction, no?

If that is not your definition of "American", then weight shifts to the "in essence is" part. What is this "essence" of being "American"? It forces one to clarify the definition of "American", does it not?

Can you please elaborate on what you meant?


I am talking about the kids who graduated from high school want to go to college and pursue a career. Even those who wish to join the Armed Forces of the U.S. Is it fair for them to be punished and barred from citizenship?

Setting aside the concept of "punishment" for a moment, allow me to comment on the "barred from citizenship?" part first...

If is fair, big-picture, to treat the descendants of illegal immigrants the same as their parents who initially and illegally immigrated; it is fair to treat them as foreigners who must first be reconciled by our immigration law, including potential deportation and/or being "barred" from future citizenship, if that is what the law says for particular cases. All this for the reasons I have previously asserted.

It would be like you sneaking into (or, more to the case of children, being snuck into) someone's house, spending your time there learning all their rules (what/when they eat, how they speak, when not to tie up the bathroom, when to take out the trash, and so on), and then being surprised if, later upon realizing that you are not a genuine member of their household according to their own definition (that is, sneaking/being snuck in does not count), they are not willing to treat you as a member of the household. From your perspective, the only valid way of looking at it, the only valid way of making your choices in the situation, is to realize this: It's their house, they can decide whatever they like. If they kicked you out, it would be their right. It would not be a "punishment" upon you. It would be them exercising their right to aggregate self-preservation. All you may demand in the name of "fairness" is that you are not mistreated on the way out the door.



It?s a complicated situation for the kids of illegal immigrants, because they are part of U.S culture minus their statues which cannot change under the current laws. ... I am in no way talking about illegal immigrants, but the kids who grew up here that are illegal. ... Again I am talking about the kids who grew up to be adults. NOT the illegal immigrants who crossed the border, but those who had no choice, and no say!!

You are right to draw the distinction between those illegal immigrants who willingly transgressed the immigration laws and those who did not.

As I see it, the children of illegal immigrants are still illegal non-citizen residents of the nation (culturally adapted or not), and are subject to the same "path to citizenship" as any other person from anywhere else. That they have a head-start for having grown up here is a boon to them in this sense, but is not grounds for regarding them any differently than any other foreigner when it comes to thought and action on principle.

[Oso Mocoso]

Likewise, but I would counter with the respectful, constructive criticism that you're being short-sighted. Oso, I feel you're missing the forest for the trees, as it applies to the practical consequences of allowing illegal immigrants to come in and do what they're doing.

For the most part they're working low wage unskilled jobs. On the whole, there are very few negative consequences of them being here. Not very much in the way of positive consequences either, I guess. For the most part, it's a wash.

Your analogy about a foreign invasion is just pathetic.

1. Bombing cities.
2. Picking fruit in exchange for low wages.
3. Establishing death camps.
4. Working in restaurants.
5. Providing inexpensive automobile services.
6. Forcing women into sexual servitude on a large scale.

Okay, some of the things on this list were characteristic of Japan's invasion of China and the Philippines during WW2. Some of the list are characteristic of your alleged "invasion". Do you really have ANY confusion about which are from which scenario? Don't you think if the Japanese had performed a Mexican style invasion of China, well ... no one would have cared?

--Oso

[C.J.Woolf]

I'd rather work on solving our own problems instead of trying to fix Mexico's.
Considering the illegal immigration problem is caused by Mexico's problems, perhaps we should try to fix Mexico's problems.

(Similarly, Afghanistan's problems contributed to the rise of al-Qaida; that's why we're there.)

[Ptah]

Your analogy about a foreign invasion is just pathetic.


I meant the term invasion as in meanings 2-4 found here

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invasion



in?va?sion
?noun
1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
2. the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
3. entrance as if to take possession or overrun: the annual invasion of the resort by tourists.
4. infringement by intrusion.


As in, unwelcome, troublesome, and potentially harmful visitors, where "unwelcome,..." here refers to their big-picture potential for long-term practical national ruin, to say nothing of the breach in principle we sustain for allowing them to stay, or offering them concessions any different than any other foreigner on home soil/seeking to come upon it.

How would you like it if a dozen people snuck into your family's home, and insisted that they "belong" simply because they helped with the chores (particularly the unpleasant ones), followed the rules, and did nothing in particular "wrong", apart from sneaking in? I'd wager to say most would regard those people as "invaders" in the sense above regardles of how "helpful" they have been? This is what I was getting at.

[Oso Mocoso]

As in, unwelcome, troublesome, and potentially harmful visitors, where "unwelcome,..." here refers to their big-picture potential for long-term practical national ruin

Oh, right. Because a bunch of people cleaning our homes and picking fruit is going to lead to national ruin. Won't someone think of the children?


to say nothing of the breach in principle we sustain for allowing them to stay, or offering them concessions any different than any other foreigner on home soil/seeking to come upon it.

Right. Like how the Irish came over here and fucked everything up by being police officers and getting elected President. The fucking Irish!


How would you like it if a dozen people snuck into your family's home, and insisted that they "belong" simply because they helped with the chores (particularly the unpleasant ones), followed the rules, and did nothing in particular "wrong", apart from sneaking in?

Could you possibly reread that and explain to me how it's not just obviously bullshit and completely ridiculous? I mean, really if someone snuck into my home and started doing chores and helping out ... ? I'd wonder what possibly motivated them? Maybe I'd say thanks and buy them a steak because they were awesome.

--Oso

[Delilah]

I mean, really if someone snuck into my home and started doing chores and helping out ... ? I'd wonder what possibly motivated them? Maybe I'd say thanks and buy them a steak because they were awesome.

--Oso



=))
If I ever decide to sneak into someone else's house and help out with chores, it'll be yours....... can I get a beer with that though?

[Lateralus]

Oh, right. Because a bunch of people cleaning our homes and picking fruit is going to lead to national ruin. Won't someone think of the children?
You obviously don't get it. It's about preserving culture, not that American culture is the greatest thing ever, but many people don't want it to change. The influx of Mexicans is gradually changing the culture, here, and many people don't like it. You can say what want about how it's not fair or not logical, but this is part of human nature. Every culture seeks to preserve itself. That's why most immigrants are looked down upon in every society.

You're never going to get the majority to agree with you. Not ever.

[Zephyrus055]

=))
If I ever decide to sneak into someone else's house and help out with chores, it'll be yours....... can I get a beer with that though?
Hmm, my apartment has some chores that really need doing. I have almost exhausted my supply of silverware, and it's been in the sink for about a month or so. The kitchen floor could use some mopping, and the bathroom sink and tub needs major cleaning too. I'd be willing to pay about $100 to have this shit cleaned, and I have an extra twin bed just in case. And yes, you can drink as much beer as you want!

[Delilah]

Hmm, my apartment has some chores that really need doing. I have almost exhausted my supply of silverware, and it's been in the sink for about a month or so. The kitchen floor could use some mopping, and the bathroom sink and tub needs major cleaning too. I'd be willing to pay about $100 to have this shit cleaned, and I have an extra twin bed just in case. And yes, you can drink as much beer as you want!

Cool! I'll even cook the steaks!

[Zephyrus055]

Cool! I'll even cook the steaks!
w00t :) ! I'll get back to you after Thanksgiving.

[narsasistickx]

All I can say to you Petah is put urself in this situation. Nothing has changed you are you. Only difference now is that you don’t belong here. Not because you wanted to be here, but because you where brought here. You now realize you cannot stay here. You have to go back. One little problem. You are an AMERICAN. If you do not know what it is to be an American I am sorry. No need to define it, because if you live here well ffs you should know. Hell I bet those kids who where not born here are more patriotic then you are.
If you are not an American I retract my statement and apologize. Well so now thinking on you logic you decide to obey the laws and leave to your country. That being Mexico, Canada, or some where in Africa. You then decide hell I should try to gain citizenship now because well...there is nothing for me in this country I don’t belong here. So you apply for citizenship. You need to gain access back, because you have no family in this country and your family in American can’t support you. You’re all alone. So then you finally get word from the States saying "you are banned for 10 years" wtf did u do?
Kill some one? INVADE and pillage the country? Rape and steal from the people? OR maybe all you did was graduate from high school and tried to reason with the U.S laws?
I think you are overcomplicating things with a constant asking of definitions and further explanation. There is no "What IF" It does not matter. Because if you try to battle it out with the current laws
YOU=Lose

[Ptah]

All I can say to you Petah is put urself in this situation.


It's Ptah. And if you're going for psuedo-phonetics (as in "urself"), "Petah" still isn't quite right. If you get to have a name apparently derived from "narcissism", I get to niggle over the proper psuedo-phonetificiation of mine :)



Nothing has changed you are you. Only difference now is that you don?t belong here. Not because you wanted to be here, but because you where brought here. You now realize you cannot stay here. You have to go back. One little problem. You are an AMERICAN.


Culturally, perhaps (now I see your definition of the term "an American"?), but if the government says I'm not, then I'm not. I see it this way. Say I somehow got away with living in France for years and years, adapted to their culture, but never went on the books with the government. By your apperent use of "American" in the cultural sense, I'd be "French". But if the government says I'm not, then I'm not. The same would apply if I were born in France and lived my life there, if that's what their laws say.

The definition of a "citizen" is the prerogative of a government, and it is on this definition --- not simply whether or not somone has been culturally adapted -- that it may enact whatever immigration/nationalizion laws/policies that it sees fit. Whether someone is culturally adapted to a nation has nothing necessarily to do with their status as a citizen.



If you do not know what it is to be an American I am sorry. No need to define it, because if you live here well ffs you should know. Hell I bet those kids who where not born here are more patriotic then you are.


By your apparent cultural-adaption context for the term "American", yes, I do know what it is to be "American" (mid-west). I wouldn't involve patriotism if I were you.



Well so now thinking on you logic you decide to obey the laws and leave to your country. That being Mexico, Canada, or some where in Africa.

Sure, if this foreign origin can be proven of me, as can my illegitimate claim to US citizenship by the standards of the government's definition, then I should decide to obey the laws and leave "my" country (taken to mean the country in which I grew up culturally adapted to); should I decide to remain athwart the laws, the government has it's right to do with me as it's laws dictate.

Framing this argument in a subjective perspective changes nothing for me, and nor should it you. The principles remain. The (in)justice of the matter is not the question, nor is the cultural adaptation. A government must have the right to decide citizenship and act upon residents who are non-citizens; residents -- citizen and otherwise -- have two choices -- take it or leave it.

To Oso Mocoso's earlier points; Just as residents, citizen or otherwise, must obey the laws of the nation in which they reside, so must the nation be held to form fair/just laws. But it's failure to do so changes nothing of the principle that says it may act, and so must all it's residents, in accordance with them. Furthermore, one should hope that the nation form these laws in accordance with (and only with) the principle of national self-preservation (and that which follows rationally from it), and that it's residents come to terms with that, or accept they're taking a "calculated risk" in remaining resident in a nation whose citizenship laws they disagree with and/or flout.



You then decide hell I should try to gain citizenship now because well...there is nothing for me in this country I don?t belong here. So you apply for citizenship. You need to gain access back, because you have no family in this country and your family in American can?t support you. You?re all alone. So then you finally get word from the States saying "you are banned for 10 years" wtf did u do?


That's sad. But shit happens. It's not my "fault", but that doesn't necessarily make it the nation's either. And even if fault could be ascribed, that does not change the nation's right to act on it's laws, however potentially misguided and unjust.



Kill some one? INVADE and pillage the country? Rape and steal from the people? OR maybe all you did was graduate from high school and tried to reason with the U.S laws?


I'm not sure I follow what you're getting at here.



I think you are overcomplicating things with a constant asking of definitions and further explanation. There is no "What IF" It does not matter. Because if you try to battle it out with the current laws
YOU=Lose

As long as we're offering constructive criticism at each other... I think you are oversimplifying things with muddied, unclear (read: not defined) concepts and failure to see anything other than the subjective.

All this is merely as I see it :)

[Oso Mocoso]

You obviously don't get it.

Oh, it's not that I don't get it. I totally get that there are people out there who are xenophobic morons.


It's about preserving culture, not that American culture is the greatest thing ever, but many people don't want it to change. The influx of Mexicans is gradually changing the culture, here, and many people don't like it.

Right. Just like previous waves of immigration changed it. Catholics, Irish, Italians, race-mixing between "civilized Indians" and English settlers. The morons you're talking about have always existed and always failed to save American culture from changing. If you want me to help you walk literally generation by generation from the first European settlers in the Americas to present, I'll help you learn the history of our country and immigration.


Every culture seeks to preserve itself. That's why most immigrants are looked down upon in every society.

You're never going to get the majority to agree with you. Not ever.

I don't think the majority of Americans really care very much about this issue one way or another. Broadly speaking, the USA is pretty friendly to immigrants. I've lived in places where the very idea of people immigrating and becoming citizens isn't considered seriously as a possibility.

--Oso

[C.J.Woolf]

American culture is tough. I think it can take it.

[Oso Mocoso]

To Oso Mocoso's earlier points; Just as residents, citizen or otherwise, must obey the laws of the nation in which they reside, so must the nation be held to form fair/just laws. But it's failure to do so changes nothing of the principle that says it may act, and so must all it's residents, in accordance with them.

Umm ... no. And ... don't you live in New England? I seem to remember that from somewhere. If you do, do you know much about the laws of your own state? Of course we don't actually enforce all the laws that exist. Especially so in weird old states. In Massachusetts it's illegal to be an atheist and mixed race marriages are explicitly declared illegal. Living there, I never felt like a fugitive. We mostly ignore laws that are ridiculous and usually selectively enforce the other ones. A lot of time, the letter of the law gets ignored and we enforce the spirit of the law. Exactly how this happens varies by jurisdiction and from country to country. When I was living in Costa Rica, they barely enforce the law at all unless you're making a big problem for people.


Furthermore, one should hope that the nation form these laws in accordance with (and only with) the principle of national self-preservation (and that which follows rationally from it), and that it's residents come to terms with that, or accept they're taking a "calculated risk" in remaining resident in a nation whose citizenship laws they disagree with and/or flout.

The first part is just dumb, and the second is so obvious that I'm surprised an INTP would have written it. Nations don't make laws in accordance with their own self-preservation. What history of the human race have you been reading? Maybe you should look into that.

Of course people not observing dumb laws are taking a calculated risk. I mean, the loonies in Mass. might have thrown me in their stockades for blasphemy, and forcibly dissolved my marriage. That would have been the legal thing for them to do, and correct by your arguments.

--Oso

[Avengardh]

Oso, eres mi heroe.

Seriously.

On another note: if you don't care about the subject then don't expect to be taken seriously.

On NAFTA: yeah, google Chiapas and EZLN for a bit of that, but that isn't the only thing, when Cubans touch USA-soil they are legally citizens [or it might be permanent residents, one or the other], when Mexicans, Guatemalans, or any others coming from a country not at war or being persecuted they get shot, treated like criminals [scratch that, less than criminals, you know, less than human], etc.

If that's not xenophobia then it's political advantage, which is all this is, to narsasistickx: don't expect the system to change, no, it isn't really fair, but as you can see not many care, but then again not many are informed.

[Sokkorobo]

America is not a minimal welfare state. Far from it.

[Ptah]

Oso Mocoso, I advocate we agree to disagree. You're going all descriptive, and I'm going all prescriptive. I'm talking about the big picture, the principles, the ideals that should be. You seem caught up in the sloppiness that is, as if it's an excuse for the sloppiness that should continue. There is nothing either of us can do to change one another's perspective, and I think we've reached the point where this thread no longer benefits from our exchange. So, with respect, I concede that you have your opinion seemingly based on the unfortunate reality of what is and I seem unable to sway you with reason of what ought to be..

narsasistickx: I've made my point with you.

To the rest: I offer my views because I believe them; not because I think they are absolute, complete, and right, but only that they are of the proper rational perspective, the necessary large-scale orientation on the subject of illegal immigration; a national one, not a subjective or descriptive one.

To clarify whatever context may have been read into my previous posts:

I have nothing but the utmost respect for legal immigrants that have come into the US and made it what it is today. Many of my friends are the descendents of immigrants, and of course so am I. Seriously, earnestly, and humbly, I respect them for contributing to America; it would not be what it is today without their hard work and dedication. This I solemnly hold in respect.

The same could almost be said for certain illegal immigrants. But on principle, my respect (or anyone else's) cannot and should not equate to citizenships being handed out, concessions made, nor any other "bending of the rules". How is that "fair"? How would you explain it to the LEGAL immigrants who busted their asses making America what it is for us today, who earned their citizenship the legitimate way, when we turn around and get flimsy on the illegals -- who've cheated -- that we have today? It is a slap in the face, a default on our respect to the legal immigrants, to say nothing of the failure in national self-preservation we suffer in principle and in large-scale long-term practical effect.

The self-preservation of what I speak is not cultural, although I certainly see an interpretation for it. No, what I am talking about is long-term practical ruin of an entirely different sort. If you cannot see it, I'd wager you are too nearsighted to carry the label INTP, of rational and perceiving.

I conclude with this: there is no "fair" deal to strike with illegal immigrants other than to deal with them just as we would any other illegal foreigner on US soil, if we are to remain "fair" to the generations of immigrants who came and worked here legally. :dont:

edit: I'm in the midwest, not that it matters.

[narsasistickx]

"PTAH" -(sry for miss using your name)
What I am trying to get at here is that you think like a freaking "setting up a computer" guide. Sure there are some useful stuff and little things in there but you definitely don’t want to read the whole thing as its probably useless information. Like don’t spill water on you computer. I am pretty sure that, unless you have a mental disability, or don’t know any better because of age, that you will not spill water. Its just plain logic. I see what your reading at, and the law is not fair nor does it always make 100% sense, as Oso pointed out with the whole race thing. I am not saying your world is upside down, but you need to look up sometime.

[Lateralus]

Oh, it's not that I don't get it. I totally get that there are people out there who are xenophobic morons.
Hyperbole


Right. Just like previous waves of immigration changed it. Catholics, Irish, Italians, race-mixing between "civilized Indians" and English settlers. The morons you're talking about have always existed and always failed to save American culture from changing. If you want me to help you walk literally generation by generation from the first European settlers in the Americas to present, I'll help you learn the history of our country and immigration.
Really? American culture has changed? Thanks for pointing that out. :rolleyes: Feel free to walk me through, generation by generation, if your ego needs that boost.

(previous immigrants weren't well received, either. Does "Irish need not apply" ring a bell?)


I don't think the majority of Americans really care very much about this issue one way or another. Broadly speaking, the USA is pretty friendly to immigrants. I've lived in places where the very idea of people immigrating and becoming citizens isn't considered seriously as a possibility.
Which Americans have you been speaking to? Real people? Or is this something you've decided upon, based on your Ne? I don't get that sense, at all. Nearly every person I've spoken to about immigration has a problem with it. The only people who had no opinion had nothing between their ears.