 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Why? If the law is flawed, why should breaking the law be discouraged?
What's the reason to kick them out? Some of the "criminals" have already served their sentences, and others have committed misdimeanors.
Why not kick all criminals out even if they are legal residents?
Does this apply to the rest of your philosphical system? Would you committ murder if it proved advantageous to do so?
And why do these citizens have the right to control the borders of their state?
Does the state also have the right to murder those who disagree with it, if the voters consent? |
The law is not flawed, it is just not the best for the state.
It is not immoral to obey the law, therefore it is moral to obey the law and immoral to disobey.
Since they are here illigally I do not see any reason to put up with them, if they were here legally, then the state would owe them.
No, I think that I have posted enough about my philosphy (but maybe not recently) for you to know better. I do not view immigration as morally right or wrong.
Citizens have the right to control the borders of their state because it is theirs (they own it).
It would be like me going over to your house and taking all your stuff. That is like saying citizens do not have the right to control borders.
The state does have the right to kill people, not to murder.
There is a difference.
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
IIRC at one time (during the Reagan administration I think) the US tried to make deportation of undocumented aliens who had committed crimes mandatory. Actually I wasn't aware that the law had been changed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
There should be no illegal immigrants in this country. We should give citizenship to anyone who wants it.
Having a large underclass that is routinely abused by employers and hounded by the government is a disgrace. History has shown that a pool of artificially cheap labor is always a bad thing for the economic, technological, and moral development of a society. On the other hand, immigration to the USA has always, in the long run, been good for both the immigrants and the country as a whole. Where would we be today if the Know-Nothings had been successful in keeping out the Irish, eastern Europeans, and other "undesireables"?
Go ahead and round them up. Then give them citizenship and free courses at a community college GED program. They have as much, if not more, right to be in the USA as the people born here.
American immigration laws are stupid. They are the result of small-minded, selfish people who would deny others the benefits that their ancestors were given. They deserve to be broken.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
They could have avoided being part of this large underclass but they chose not to. Why should we be responsible to protect people from the consequences of decisions they freely make themselves? |
Because it doesn't just protect them, it protects us. As long as employers want illegal labor, there will be illegal labor in this country. Furthermore, most illegal immigrants do work that Americans will not do. Obviously this country has a need for their labor. The question then is, if this labor is needed and demanded, what purpose does cracking down on illegal immigration serve?
Well, as I said before, mostly these people are employed in work Americans won't do, so we aren't deporting them in order to make more jobs available for Americans. Successfully cracking down on illegal immigrants would dry up available labor resources, and thus cause a rise in the price of labor, and since the Rebublican party goes apoplectic at the thought of paying someone more than they possibly have to, this cannot be the reason. However, if they unsuccessfully crack down on illegal immigrants, or crack down just enough, they can artificially depress the price of labor by making those who remain more desperate and thus more willing to accept any wage. This then depresses the price of labor throught the bottom rungs of society. This increases poverty, which increases crime, which increases the state's response to crime, which increases your taxes.
Abolish illegal immigration by making immigration legal. It's in all our best interests.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because it doesn't just protect them, it protects us. As long as employers want illegal labor, there will be illegal labor in this country. Furthermore, most illegal immigrants do work that Americans will not do. Obviously this country has a need for their labor. The question then is, if this labor is needed and demanded, what purpose does cracking down on illegal immigration serve?
Well, as I said before, mostly these people are employed in work Americans won't do, so we aren't deporting them in order to make more jobs available for Americans. Successfully cracking down on illegal immigrants would dry up available labor resources, and thus cause a rise in the price of labor, and since the Rebublican party goes apoplectic at the thought of paying someone more than they possibly have to, this cannot be the reason. However, if they unsuccessfully crack down on illegal immigrants, or crack down just enough, they can artificially depress the price of labor by making those who remain more desperate and thus more willing to accept any wage. This then depresses the price of labor throught the bottom rungs of society. This increases poverty, which increases crime, which increases the state's response to crime, which increases your taxes.
Abolish illegal immigration by making immigration legal. It's in all our best interests. |
I agree
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
as a living organism it has the right to exist |
First of all, how is the state a living organism? Also, why do living organisms have a right to exist? Do you believe an ant has the right to exist?
quote:
to exist it may protect itself (this means protecting it's parts (ie it's citizens)) |
How are immigration restrictions protecting a states' citizens? Again, they're economically irresponsible and morally outrageous.
And why are only citizens part of the state?
quote:
if it does not protect itself (by not taking care of it's citizens), then it loses it's right to exist and the parts my form another organism |
Why?
quote:
with my statement I was maintaining that the space that the organism exists on is the property of the organism, |
So to be consistent, you must believe that Hitler had the right to murder Germany's untermenschen, since you believe Germany was the property of the German state.
quote:
The real answer to your question is that I'm legally a citizen and as such the government lacks the authority to deport me to my country of origin. |
No ****, but you still haven't answered my question.  It was a philosophical, not legal, question. Again, what makes you believe you deserve to be here any more than "illegal" immigrants do?
quote:
It stems from a State's national sovereignty. |
That response would be an example of circular reasoning. So, where does the state's national sovereignty come from?
quote:
Now who's dodging questions, Ramo? If something is totalitarian, it is totalitarian in any and all circumstances. |
The law says rich, educated people are welcome to this country, but poor people are not. In this respect, the law is totalitarian with both groups.
quote:
In the US, we commonly call this the death penalty. It's commonly reserved for murder cases though as opposed to political dissidents. |
You didn't answer my question. Does a state have the right to murder political dissidents?
And damn straight, che! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
First of all, how is the state a living organism? Also, why do living organisms have a right to exist? Do you believe an ant has the right to exist? |
the living organism bit was a metaphorm, I would expect someone bright like you to see that
a state is formed by it's parts (the citizens) to care for their well being
quote:
How are immigration restrictions protecting a states' citizens? Again, they're economically irresponsible and morally outrageous.
|
note, I think that allowing innegration into a state is good for the state (I think that allowing anybody to leave a state is bad though)
quote:
And why are only citizens part of the state?
|
are you dense??
they are by definition
if you are not a citizen you are not part of the state
the citizens are those that joined together to form the state, so they are the state
because it is not fulfilling the reason the citizens joined together, so it loses it's right to exist
a state is a joining together of citizens for mutual care towards their rights
such as right to life and ect
quote:
So to be consistent, you must believe that Hitler had the right to murder Germany's untermenschen, since you believe Germany was the property of the German state.
|
you are being purposefuly dense
if they were citizens wrong for that reason
if they weren't it doesn't make sense and it would be immoral for the citizens of the sttate, not the state
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by faded glory
On the second part. These people come here and get free Medi-Care and benefits without even paying a dime. If you honestly think its fair (because its cost us 80 billion +) then you need to have your head checked. |
You really need to stop listening to Rush. You know he just makes up his facts, don't you? Or at least, if you're gong to listen to Rush, then fer Chissake, don't quote his BS.
Illegal immigrants don't get much in the way of Federal benefits. What they do get, if they can manage it, is state benefits, depending on the state. However, even in relatively generous states, such as California, undocumented aliens contribute more in taxes than they get back in benefits. True, they don't pay income taxes, Medicare and Social Security, or any other payroll tax (unless they've acquired a fake SSN, in which case not only are they paying their fair share of taxes, but they'll never be able to collect on them).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
the living organism bit was a metaphorm, I would expect someone bright like you to see that |
You were saying that because a living organism has the right to exist (which I don't agree with), a state has the right to exist. You have to prove why this is true, since a state is obviously not a living organism.
quote:
a state is formed by it's parts (the citizens) to care for their well being |
Nope, read up on your anthropology. States were formed because after agriculture, people were able to monopolize economic power, and therefore political power. States are based on coercion.
In some hunter-gatherer societies, "states" where they existed, were based on strongmen, also coercion.
quote:
(I think that allowing anybody to leave a state is bad though) |
Why?
quote:
are you dense??
they are by definition |
Both legal and illegal residents pay taxes and gain benefits from public programs. Why are they not part of the state?
quote:
because it is not fulfilling the reason the citizens joined together, so it loses it's right to exist
a state is a joining together of citizens for mutual care towards their rights |
Not true.
quote:
such as right to life and ect |
Granting non-ruling individuals rights has been a very modern phenomenon.
What about the freedom of non-citizens? What about freedom of movement?
quote:
you are being purposefuly dense
if they were citizens wrong for that reason |
Wrong for what reason? You said that the citizens, collectively, have the right to coerce other citizens into doing what the majority wants (and you likened my opposition to this to theft). If citizens have the right to prevent non-citizens into the property of citizens, why don't they have the right to murder citizens?
quote:
if they weren't it doesn't make sense and it would be immoral for the citizens of the sttate, not the state |
You're not answering my question. Do citizens have the right to kill these people, even if they are non-citizens?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
You were saying that because a living organism has the right to exist (which I don't agree with), a state has the right to exist. You have to prove why this is true, since a state is obviously not a living organism.
Nope, read up on your anthropology. States were formed because after agriculture, people were able to monopolize economic power, and therefore political power. States are based on coercion. |
when states were formed there was only a small group of citizens (like the free males in Athens)
it is obviously better when all inhabitants of the state are citizens of it
quote:
In some hunter-gatherer societies, "states" where they existed, were based on strongmen, also coercion. |
and if those states did not take care of their citizens they ended
Because it is the people or citizens of the state which give it it's power. By leaving they take resources from the state (Themselves) and decrease the states ability to exist.
quote:
Both legal and illegal residents pay taxes and gain benefits from public programs. Why are they not part of the state?
|
But only citizens make up the state. The other are just what the state interacts with. A state is hte grouping together of individuals for their mutual benifit. Illegal residents are not part of this contract, instead they are parasitic, feeding off the grouping made by the citizens of the state. If you do not sign the contract, you are not part of the deal.
I think that they should be allowed to be part of the state, because then the state gets more powerful. However, the state exists for the mutual care of it's citizens and so the decision lies with them.
that is how I have defined a state, and in the end that is how every state has been, those who wree not suvccesful no longer exist
quote:
Granting non-ruling individuals rights has been a very modern phenomenon.
|
and one which states did because that was how to best mutually care for their citizens
quote:
What about the freedom of non-citizens? What about freedom of movement?
|
Non-citizens have tyhe freedom to engage in a contract with other non-citizens and create a new state to care for them. Non-citizens also have the freedom to engage in a contract with an existing state to have it care for them.
Freedom of Movement???
If that is what is in the best inteerest of the state (ie it's citizens).
quote:
Wrong for what reason? You said that the citizens, collectively, have the right to coerce other citizens into doing what the majority wants (and you likened my opposition to this to theft). If citizens have the right to prevent non-citizens into the property of citizens, why don't they have the right to murder citizens?
|
if citizens go arround and murdering other citizens that is breaking the contract for care of citizens (ie parts of the state)
of course the sttate has the right to put down a citizen which is damaging the other citizens
quote:
You're not answering my question. Do citizens have the right to kill these people, even if they are non-citizens? |
depends
once you have citizens doing something, then you must ask if it was moral
American Indian - immoral
WW2 - moral
Holocaust - immoral
the state was not moral or immoral in these cases (the state is amoral) but the citizens were and should be responded to as such
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't know about you. but I certainly wouldn't even consider patronizing a restaraunt that used convict slave labor, nor would I want such persons mowing my lawn or watching my kids or cleaning my house. Furthermore, I'd hate for the state to have an incentive to start imprisoning people in order to rent them out for slavery. |
Not even if they come with their own state trooper completely equipped with sawed-off shotgun and reflective aviator's sunglasses ala "The Man with No Eyes" in "Hud"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
I told you the answer. |
Where? I know the law perfectly well. I was asking for the justification of it.
quote:
Morality is entirely irrelevent to this position. |
Morality is entirely relevant to every position. Even your Machiavellian nationalistic real-politik philosophy is a form of morality, whether or not you put it in those terms.
quote:
Would you care to enlighten me about the reasons why you deserve your computer anymore than I do? |
That's not an analagous question. This is about state coercion, not economic philosophy.
quote:
Complete independence and self-government (sovereignty) over a recognized territory is a necessary condition a government has to exercise in order to be considered legitimate. |
So you're saying that the state has the right to do anything it wants on its territory. Why is that so? You're not explaining anything.
BTW, I was wondering the implication of what you call the rights of the state? What does it gain by having the right to do something?
Why do you not believe that states have the right to massacre peaceful political dissidents, but do have the right to control its borders?
quote:
What this has to do with the arguement at hand, I don't know. |
To prove that your position is totally inconsistent.
quote:
when states were formed there was only a small group of citizens (like the free males in Athens)
it is obviously better when all inhabitants of the state are citizens of it |
Your point being...? You haven't explained why a state has the right to exist.
quote:
Because it is the people or citizens of the state which give it it's power. By leaving they take resources from the state (Themselves) and decrease the states ability to exist. |
If the state controls the movement of certain citizens, it certainly is not acting in a manner beneficial to those citizens. In economic terms, most citizens. Doesn't your ideal state then no longer become state, by your definition?
quote:
But only citizens make up the state. The other are just what the state interacts with. A state is hte grouping together of individuals for their mutual benifit. |
I would consider that true for only very few states (real definition, not your definition). Under your definition, AFAIK, the US is not a state.
quote:
Illegal residents are not part of this contract, instead they are parasitic, feeding off the grouping made by the citizens of the state. |
Illegal residents certainly are not parasitic. They pay taxes, but get few, if any, benefits. In fact, the opposite is true; citizens are parasitic off the illegal residents.
quote:
I think that they should be allowed to be part of the state, because then the state gets more powerful. However, the state exists for the mutual care of it's citizens and so the decision lies with them. |
But if the state does not allow them in, it ceases to act in the mutual interest of its citizens, and no longer becomes a state.
quote:
If you do not sign the contract, you are not part of the deal. |
I've never signed any such contract with the US gov't, nor do I plan to.
quote:
and in the end that is how every state has been |
Well, you just redefined "state!" How can I argue with that?
quote:
However, the state exists for the mutual care of it's citizens and so the decision lies with them. |
What do you consider to be states? Colombia? Turkey? Iran? Israel? The US? Are any of these states?
quote:
and one which states did because that was how to best mutually care for their citizens |
You'll have to read up on your history too. The Bill of Rights, for example, was instituted as checks against federal governments over state governments. It didn't apply to citizens until decades after the passage of the 14th Amendment. Similarly, the Magna Carta was primarily a check on the King over the nobility. These and similar institutions changed to ensure the power of the state, not for the benefit of its citizens.
quote:
Non-citizens have tyhe freedom to engage in a contract with other non-citizens and create a new state to care for them. Non-citizens also have the freedom to engage in a contract with an existing state to have it care for them. |
Why do you assert non-citizens have these rights, but they do not have the right to enter in contracts with citizens?
quote:
if citizens go arround and murdering other citizens that is breaking the contract for care of citizens (ie parts of the state)
of course the sttate has the right to put down a citizen which is damaging the other citizens |
And why is the state not breaking its contract when coercing citizens (i.e. creating immigration restrictions)?
quote:
depends
once you have citizens doing something, then you must ask if it was moral |
No, it does not depend. Either, the state has the right to do something or not.
quote:
American Indian - immoral |
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-02-2002 12:38
If you cant communicate with someone......err you should know this. Im not even going to explain it
|