Commit a crime? Hide here.

[buttonjockey308]

Based on this (http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/05/09/658536.html) story here. Seems churches nation wide are going to be hiding criminals (illegal immigrants) until the rest of us figure out that we should just forgive people for their crimes, and just allow them to become citizens.

Now, we will discount the fact that the law of sanctuary is one dating back to medieval England, and not applicable to modern society despite the "movement" by American Churches...

Sanctuary was also a movement among churches in the United States in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, which from 1980 onward offered "sanctuary" to migrants fleeing El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, considered illegal aliens by the US Immigration and Naturalization Services.[1] Part of a broader anti-war movement positioned against U.S. foreign policy in Central America, by 1987 440 sites in the United States had been declared "sanctuaries" open to migrants from this region. These sites included university campuses and cities. From the 1980s continuing into the 2000s, there also have been instances of churches providing "sanctuary" for short periods to migrants facing deportation in Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, and Canada, among other nations. From 1983 to 2003 Canada experienced 36 sanctuary incidents

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime. The Church is using themselves as a shield to hide these criminals from arrest, prosecution and/or deportation. The only reason that the Feds don't kick down the doors and remove the illegals is because of the instant bad press.

Question becomes, what if it were a murder suspect? Or a rapist, or bank robber, or, carjacker or drug smuggler? What then? Does the guy who shot a cop get a free pass just by seeking sanctuary in a church? What LEGAL authority gives the church right to hide some seedy fucker who is in violation of the laws and rules of our country?

I think none. Please correct me if I'm wrong, however.

I think churches of ALL denominations should stick to church business, and keep their noses the fuck OUT of the business of the state. Of course, I know that doesn't happen and the church (specifically the Catholics) have hidden the worst of the worst of criminals from prosecution for decades, but that does NOT make it right.

There was a raid on a Little Village shopping mall that caused outrage here in Chicago (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/361745,CST-NWS-immig28.article) last month.

I'll see your outrage, and raise you a GET THE FUCK OUT if you don't like how we do business. You KNOW it's illegal to be here the way you are, you KNOW you shouldn't be doing it, you KNOW there are consequences, and yet you march to demand that we change OUR laws, and the enforcement thereof to suit YOU and your needs. Fuck that. If you intend to break the law, you must live with the consequences. If you gamble with the welfare of your family, again, you must live with what happens when you're found out. Perhaps it IS unjust, but you KNOW it is, and you expect dispensation based on what?

The fact that you work for cash and pay little to no taxes yet use the infrastructure that the rest of the taxpayers are paying to construct and maintain?

The fact that you chose to bring your family here and make them criminals too because you can't make it where you live? (admittedly, a life in Mexico, for instance, can be a rough one, and this IS the land of opportunity, but there are legal ways to work and live here).

The fact that you have children? Listen, I didn't have your kid, YOU did. YOU put that child in danger. YOU made that baby, friend. YOU are responsible for it, and for the next 18 years (if not beyond). If there is one simple act that would put the misery of the world to rest in VERY short order (meaning 15 years or less), it would have to be: STOP FUCKING! Of course, this is totally NOT applicable to victims of rape and incest, but not every poverty sticken child is a product of that. Can you imagine what 10 million fewer babies would do to the resources of our planet?

The fact that the IRCA worked so well in your favor in 1986 and after, that scores of illegal immigrants pour over our borders each and every year strengthening your political clout, despite your non-grata status?

I say bullshit.

With all that said, I'll say this:

Things are tough all over, you want to be here, the fact is, we want people who are going to work hard and raise families, but godDAMN it, do it LEGALLY.

You have a right to be here,. A right to prosper along side people who were born and raised here, what you do NOT have the right to do is tax the system that supports you, which you do not in turn support, and demand changes to laws simply because they do not suit your way of life.

What you do NOT have the right to do is break the laws that are meant to protect ALL of us, even you, from another 9/11, which, as you may or may NOT know, was committed by, you guessed it, largely illegal immigrants. Nor does the church (specifically the priests or church administration) have the right to conspire with you and against the government to assist you in breaking the laws of this country, and I think it's WAY past time for the feds to get some stones and take these criminals into custody, along with anyone else they find that's breaking the law.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

This is probably not going to go well for you.

There are many types of criminals and many types of crimes. Today is more enightened than yesterday, but not as enlightened as tomorrow. Our representative government does not have an exclusive handle on morality or compassion.

Once upon a time, miscegination was a crime. Once upon a time, escaping from a man who held you as property was a crime.

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime.

You are incorrect in this assessment. Not all people who commit different crimes are the same type of criminal.

Question becomes, what if it were a murder suspect? Or a rapist, or bank robber, or, carjacker or drug smuggler? What then? Does the guy who shot a cop get a free pass just by seeking sanctuary in a church? What LEGAL authority gives the church right to hide some seedy fucker who is in violation of the laws and rules of our country?

Murder, rape, robbery, carjacking, drug smuggling- these are not crimes where the ultimate goal is to better the lives of your family. The churches in question are likely seizing on THAT distinction in deciding which "criminals" to harbor. They may not have the LEGAL authority to do so, but the Church (mine, at least) is less concerned with temporal authority and more with Divine Commandment.

You can agree or disagree with the validity of this distinction, but the legal distinction between types of criminals is very real to the eyes of the law, and the difference between types of people is very real in the eyes of the Church, as is the difference between temporal and Divine authority.

I'll see your outrage, and raise you a GET THE FUCK OUT if you don't like how we do business. You KNOW it's illegal to be here the way you are, you KNOW you shouldn't be doing it, you KNOW there are consequences, and yet you march to demand that we change OUR laws, and the enforcement thereof to suit YOU and your needs. Fuck that. If you intend to break the law, you must live with the consequences. If you gamble with the welfare of your family, again, you must live with what happens when you're found out. Perhaps it IS unjust, but you KNOW it is, and you expect dispensation based on what?

This paragraph demonstrates a marked lack of understanding about how our legal system works.

How do you think emancipation happened?
How do you think women's suffrage happened?

The fact is that groups who are noncitizens or disenfranchised HAVE to lobby and legislate by proxy, and do so all the time. The nature of our system is such that if you get enough people around to your way of thinking, you can make your way of thinking into the law. Because one position is currently dominant,that does not make that position the virtuous one. If one intends to break the law, one can always legislate the conflict away.

What you do NOT have the right to do is break the laws that are meant to protect ALL of us, even you, from another 9/11, which, as you may or may NOT know, was committed by, you guessed it, largely illegal immigrants.

It is to rolleyes.

[DanBlather]

What you do NOT have the right to do is break the laws that are meant to protect ALL of us, even you, from another 9/11, which, as you may or may NOT know, was committed by, you guessed it, largely illegal immigrants. 9/11 Commission: "As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously. None of the 9/11 attackers entered or tried to enter our country this way."

[Ravenman]

Now, we will discount the fact that the law of sanctuary is one dating back to medieval England, and not applicable to modern society despite the "movement" by American Churches... [snip part about folks from Central American countries seeking sanctuary in US churches in the 80s]

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime. I'm sort of undecided on immigration policy in general -- I'm not for amnesty but realize it is foolhardy to think that we can just sweep out millions of illegal immigrants with more law enforcement -- but good lord, man, criticizing churches for boarding people fleeing discriminant violence in war-torn Central America is just... heartless.

[Miller]

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime.

Except, of course, for the part where their crimes cause harm to other people. Which is the point where I stop giving a fuck if these people are arrested or not. Factor in the reasons why they came here and broke those particular laws, and the general impossibility for 99% of these immigrants to get here legally, and I'm pretty solidly behind the church on this one. Which I believe is a first, for me.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Except, of course, for the part where their crimes cause harm to other people.

Maybe, if I beat everyone, even though I'll be doing it completely sarcastically, to:

BUT THEY'RE TAKING OUR JOBS!!!!!!!!!!twenty-five!!!!!!


we won't have to address that particular fallacy.

[LilShieste]

There are many types of criminals and many types of crimes. Today is more enightened than yesterday, but not as enlightened as tomorrow. Our representative government does not have an exclusive handle on morality or compassion.

Once upon a time, miscegination was a crime. Once upon a time, escaping from a man who held you as property was a crime.
Once upon a time, "aiding and abetting" a criminal was also a crime.

Murder, rape, robbery, carjacking, drug smuggling- these are not crimes where the ultimate goal is to better the lives of your family.
Maybe not in all cases, but it certainly could be in some (e.g., stealing a load of bread to feed my family).

The churches in question are likely seizing on THAT distinction in deciding which "criminals" to harbor. They may not have the LEGAL authority to do so, but the Church (mine, at least) is less concerned with temporal authority and more with Divine Commandment.
If people want to protest something that they see as immoral, and do so with illegal actions, they shouldn't be surprised when the legal system comes crashing down on them.

This paragraph demonstrates a marked lack of understanding about how our legal system works.

How do you think emancipation happened?
How do you think women's suffrage happened?
I don't see how buttonjockey308's post demonstrates a lack of understanding about our legal system. In fact, quite the opposite (see my comment above).


LilShieste

[LilShieste]

I'm sort of undecided on immigration policy in general -- I'm not for amnesty but realize it is foolhardy to think that we can just sweep out millions of illegal immigrants with more law enforcement -- but good lord, man, criticizing churches for boarding people fleeing discriminant violence in war-torn Central America is just... heartless.
This sanctuary thing is not quite the same as sweeping out millions of illegal immigrants. It's about actually apprehending someone who has knowingly broken the law, has been identified as such, and is seeking assistance from a third party who seems to think they are above the law.


LilShieste

[Shodan]

9/11 Commission: "As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously. None of the 9/11 attackers entered or tried to enter our country this way."
On the other hand, three of the six recently arrested for plotting to commit mass murder of American servicemen and -women were here illegally.

I know, I know - innocent until proven guilty and all that. Still...

Regards,
Shodan

[Aholibah]

Also, regarding services received and not paid for by immigrants, might I direct your attention to this report (http://www.urban.org/publications/305184.html#V), which states in part (bolding mine):

Contrary to the public's perception, when all levels of government are considered together, immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services received. This surplus is unevenly distributed among different levels of government, however, with immigrants (and natives) generating a net surplus to the federal government, but a net cost to some states and most localities. This misperception regarding immigrants' net fiscal impact has been reinforced by several highly publicized recent studies that overlook three basic facts about immigration. First, integration of immigrants is dynamic; their incomes and tax contributions both increase the longer they live in the United States. Second, incomes vary considerably for different types of immigrants with legally admitted immigrants, as a group, generally having significantly higher incomes than illegal immigrants or refugees. Finally, the studies do not take into account the indirect benefits of job creation from immigrant businesses or consumer demand.

One of the myths often cited to support the contention that immigrants cost more than they contribute is that they are heavy users of welfare. The facts are very different. When refugees are excluded, it becomes clear that immigrants of working age are considerably less likely than natives of working age to receive welfare. Refugees are explicitly entitled to such benefits on arrival and are, not surprisingly, much more likely than natives to be welfare recipients. Again, the failure to differentiate immigrants according to their legal status contributes greatly to misperceptions of reality and to proposals of potentially ineffective policies.
and:
According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates major reductions in immigration to the United States. "The Costs of Immigration" (Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle's study actually show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion (Passel and Clark 1994).

Granted, this study examines the impact of immigration of all kinds, but it is not safe to assume that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Many of them do, in fact.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

LilShieste, I don't see your point.

buttonjockey seems to be saying that the church in question ought not do these things, that the people protesting on behalf of the immigrants ought not do so, that the entire process here is morally deficient because it is illegal.


While not disputing the illegality of what the church or the immigrants are doing, I very strongly disagree with the notion that immoral and illegal are the same thing.


The church is harboring illegal immigrants because it can do so- it has the power to do so because federal agents breaking into a church is some of the worst publicity in the world. Good for them. The church believes that its duty is to God, and it is using power that it has in order to fulfill that duty. Illegal? Perhaps? Immoral? Certainly not, according to them.


Maybe not in all cases, but it certainly could be in some (e.g., stealing a load of bread to feed my family).

As far as the rest of your nitpicking, are you trying to make a point, or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking? To continue your nitpick- stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is more larceny than it is robbery. The point is that buttonjockey's contention that all criminals are alike is not reasonably defensible. But you knew that, didn't you?

If people want to protest something that they see as immoral, and do so with illegal actions, they shouldn't be surprised when the legal system comes crashing down on them.

The protestors were not engaged in illegal activity. Regardless of whether they came to this country illegally or not, they have the right of peaceful assembly and cannot be arrested for doing that.

Besides, I never said and will not claim that these people's actions do NOT have consequences. Where I differ is what those consequences ought to be.

But you knew that as well, didn't you?


Are there legal consequences? Certainly. But does illegality equal immorality? It most certainly does not.

[buttonjockey308]

9/11 Commission: "As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously. None of the 9/11 attackers entered or tried to enter our country this way."

Staying past your visa and the forging of documents are still illegal immigration.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Care to address the other objections?

[buttonjockey308]

LilShieste, I don't see your point.

buttonjockey seems to be saying that the church in question ought not do these things, that the people protesting on behalf of the immigrants ought not do so, that the entire process here is morally deficient because it is illegal.

What I am saying is that the Church ought not to harbor those who knowingly commit crimes against us, no matter how ambiguous, or, in some cases harsh the law is.


While not disputing the illegality of what the church or the immigrants are doing, I very strongly disagree with the notion that immoral and illegal are the same thing.

I personally never said illegal and immoral are the same. In fact, they are often at odds, but neither does the church corner the market on morality.

The church is harboring illegal immigrants because it can do so- it has the power to do so because federal agents breaking into a church is some of the worst publicity in the world. Good for them. The church believes that its duty is to God, and it is using power that it has in order to fulfill that duty. Illegal? Perhaps? Immoral? Certainly not, according to them.

Illegal? Definately. It must be understood that I am not against immigration, only illegal immigration. According to the laws, that apply to EVERYBODY, illegal or not, the Church, as what can be construed by some as a moral compass, should generally be in line with what is legal. Their "feelings" about harboring fugitives from another country notwithstanding, they are acting as conspirators in the commission of a federal offense. Period


As far as the rest of your nitpicking, are you trying to make a point, or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking? To continue your nitpick- stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is more larceny than it is robbery. The point is that buttonjockey's contention that all criminals are alike is not reasonably defensible. But you knew that, didn't you?

Believe me when I tell you that I know precisely the difference between crimes and criminals, I do NOT assert that all criminals are alike, yet for every crime there is a criminal who will commit it, and for every criminal there is a punishment, fair in the eyes of the church or not, this is how we protect our society.

The protestors were not engaged in illegal activity. Regardless of whether they came to this country illegally or not, they have the right of peaceful assembly and cannot be arrested for doing that.

Besides, I never said and will not claim that these people's actions do NOT have consequences. Where I differ is what those consequences ought to be.


Never said they were. Sure their voices can be heard, just like mine, where we part ways is the insistance that we refrain from enforcing our laws on them basically because there are too many of them to catch. If you break the laws of Mexico, for instance, just wait and see how fast your ass ends up in the klink.

Are there legal consequences? Certainly. But does illegality equal immorality? It most certainly does not.

Agreed, but moral code can be subjective, the law, while open to relative interpretation, is generally black and white.

[LilShieste]

buttonjockey seems to be saying that the church in question ought not do these things, that the people protesting on behalf of the immigrants ought not do so, that the entire process here is morally deficient because it is illegal.
I saw the first item in buttonjockey's OP (that the church shouldn't be doing what it's doing), but I don't see him saying anywhere that people shouldn't be protesting on behalf of the immigrants (I would guess to have something done to the process of legal immigration). What buttonjockey is saying is that the church is committing a crime - whether we like it or not - by providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants. And I agree with him on this.

[quote=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]While not disputing the illegality of what the church or the immigrants are doing, I very strongly disagree with the notion that immoral and illegal are the same thing.
I'm certainly not trying to argue that immoral and illegal are the same thing. I know that the church is doing what it sees as the "moral" thing, even though it's illegal.


The church is harboring illegal immigrants because it can do so- it has the power to do so because federal agents breaking into a church is some of the worst publicity in the world. Good for them.
You're right - good for them. But if federal agents do decide to break into (read: enter) the church and arrest the illegal immigrants, I would also say "good for them", for upholding the law in the face of a someone who is essentially trying to call a bluff.

If the church wants to participate in rallying a reform of the immigration system, then right on. If they church wants to act as an accessory to a crime, though, I just might not side with them.

The church believes that its duty is to God, and it is using power that it has in order to fulfill that duty. Illegal? Perhaps? Immoral? Certainly not, according to them.
I'm not arguing otherwise. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s", is all I'm saying.


As far as the rest of your nitpicking, are you trying to make a point, or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking? To continue your nitpick- stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is more larceny than it is robbery. The point is that buttonjockey's contention that all criminals are alike is not reasonably defensible. But you knew that, didn't you?
My nitpicking is simply to point out that the church is committing a crime. I certainly don't completely equate illegal immigration to murder (and I would guess that buttonjockey308 doesn't either). Legally, though, it doesn't matter which of these the criminal is guilty of.

The protestors were not engaged in illegal activity. Regardless of whether they came to this country illegally or not, they have the right of peaceful assembly and cannot be arrested for doing that.

Besides, I never said and will not claim that these people's actions do NOT have consequences. Where I differ is what those consequences ought to be.
What consequences do you think there ought to be, then?

But you knew that as well, didn't you?
Why do you keep insisting that I "knew" these things? If you want to accuse me of something, just come out and do it.

My main beef with this whole sanctuary thing is the legality of it. From your posts, it looks like we don't differ on that.


LilShieste

[LilShieste]

buttonjockey seems to be saying that the church in question ought not do these things, that the people protesting on behalf of the immigrants ought not do so, that the entire process here is morally deficient because it is illegal.
I saw the first item in buttonjockey's OP (that the church shouldn't be doing what it's doing), but I don't see him saying anywhere that people shouldn't be protesting on behalf of the immigrants (I would guess to have something done to the process of legal immigration). What buttonjockey is saying is that the church is committing a crime - whether we like it or not - by providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants. And I agree with him on this.

While not disputing the illegality of what the church or the immigrants are doing, I very strongly disagree with the notion that immoral and illegal are the same thing.
I'm certainly not trying to argue that immoral and illegal are the same thing. I know that the church is doing what it sees as the "moral" thing, even though it's illegal.


The church is harboring illegal immigrants because it can do so- it has the power to do so because federal agents breaking into a church is some of the worst publicity in the world. Good for them.
You're right - good for them. But if federal agents do decide to break into (read: enter) the church and arrest the illegal immigrants, I would also say "good for them", for upholding the law in the face of a someone who is essentially trying to call a bluff.

If the church wants to participate in rallying a reform of the immigration system, then right on. If they church wants to act as an accessory to a crime, though, I just might not side with them.

The church believes that its duty is to God, and it is using power that it has in order to fulfill that duty. Illegal? Perhaps? Immoral? Certainly not, according to them.
I'm not arguing otherwise. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s", is all I'm saying.


As far as the rest of your nitpicking, are you trying to make a point, or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking? To continue your nitpick- stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is more larceny than it is robbery. The point is that buttonjockey's contention that all criminals are alike is not reasonably defensible. But you knew that, didn't you?
My nitpicking is simply to point out that the church is committing a crime. I certainly don't completely equate illegal immigration to murder (and I would guess that buttonjockey308 doesn't either). Legally, though, it doesn't matter which of these the criminal is guilty of.

The protestors were not engaged in illegal activity. Regardless of whether they came to this country illegally or not, they have the right of peaceful assembly and cannot be arrested for doing that.

Besides, I never said and will not claim that these people's actions do NOT have consequences. Where I differ is what those consequences ought to be.
What consequences do you think there ought to be, then?

But you knew that as well, didn't you?
Why do you keep insisting that I "knew" these things? If you want to accuse me of something, just come out and do it.

My main beef with this whole sanctuary thing is the legality of it. From your posts, it looks like we don't differ on that.


LilShieste

[buttonjockey308]

Also, regarding services received and not paid for by immigrants, might I direct your attention to this report (http://www.urban.org/publications/305184.html#V), which states in part (bolding mine):


and:


Granted, this study examines the impact of immigration of all kinds, but it is not safe to assume that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Many of them do, in fact.

Everyone who makes a purchase pays taxes, but taxes on bread, eggs and milk do not, generally, pay for fire and police protection, education, medical care, or other infrastructure (i.e. public works). Property taxes do that, which, illegal immigrants are not inclined to pay, as getting a loan is quite a bit more difficult when you have no valid forms of identification. Further, if a person purchases fraudulent ID and pays taxes to the extent that citizens do, the problem shifts from being a strain on the system, to a threat to security.

Further still, those who get paid in cash pay NO payroll or social security taxes, which further strains the system at a larger level. Not only do we as tax payers pay to feed, clothe, educate and house illegal immigrants on different levels, we also pay to enforce the laws that will remove them. It is a circle of absolute madness.

[Monty]

You have a right to be here,.
Actually, that's not correct. Immigrants may be awarded the privilege to be in the US. US citizens have the right to be there. That's why citizens don't require a visa but immigrants do.

[Miller]

What I am saying is that the Church ought not to harbor those who knowingly commit crimes against us, no matter how ambiguous, or, in some cases harsh the law is.


How absolute do you consider this principle to be?

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

What I am saying is that the Church ought not to harbor those who knowingly commit crimes against us, no matter how ambiguous, or, in some cases harsh the law is.

And what I and the Church are saying is that when the action that the secular government is taking is unjust, it should be checked.


I personally never said illegal and immoral are the same. In fact, they are often at odds, but neither does the church corner the market on morality.

No, it might not, but here it is taking a stand based on what it believes to be the moral thing to do. And it is taking a stand where it has power and can act in a way that it thinks is moral, in order to check an immoral act.


According to the laws, that apply to EVERYBODY, illegal or not, the Church, as what can be construed by some as a moral compass, should generally be in line with what is legal.

No, the church should NOT. The Church follows God's law, not man's. This is what got Archbishop Romero martyred, among others. The Church's JOB is to stand for what is moral.

I do NOT assert that all criminals are alike,

That is quite inconsistent with this:

The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime. The Church is using themselves as a shield to hide these criminals from arrest, prosecution and/or deportation. The only reason that the Feds don't kick down the doors and remove the illegals is because of the instant bad press.

Question becomes, what if it were a murder suspect? Or a rapist, or bank robber, or, carjacker or drug smuggler? What then? Does the guy who shot a cop get a free pass just by seeking sanctuary in a church? What LEGAL authority gives the church right to hide some seedy fucker who is in violation of the laws and rules of our country?

Saying that illegal imigrants ought to be treated the same as carjackers is indeed asserting that all criminals are alike.


Sure their voices can be heard, just like mine, where we part ways is the insistance that we refrain from enforcing our laws on them basically because there are too many of them to catch. If you break the laws of Mexico, for instance, just wait and see how fast your ass ends up in the klink.

This doesn't make any sense at all. Can you please point to where I said that we ought not enforce our laws? I have not said this at all. I have said that the Church is perfectly well within its own mission and its own power to do what it sees as right under these circumstances.

I think churches of ALL denominations should stick to church business, and keep their noses the fuck OUT of the business of the state.

The Church's business and the business of state both involve the lives of men. The Church IS doing its business here.


Agreed, but moral code can be subjective, the law, while open to relative interpretation, is generally black and white.

Both are open to interpretation. But compassion beats heavy-handedness if you're going by God's metric, which is what the Church is doing here.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

You're right - good for them. But if federal agents do decide to break into (read: enter) the church and arrest the illegal immigrants, I would also say "good for them", for upholding the law in the face of a someone who is essentially trying to call a bluff.

Nah, if the federal agents did decide to break into the church, I would say, "they were perfectly within their rights to do so, but they did an immoral thing."

I'm not arguing otherwise. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s", is all I'm saying.

Well, the illegal immigrants are indeed rendering unto Caesar.

Why do you keep insisting that I "knew" these things? If you want to accuse me of something, just come out and do it.

The only thing I am accusing you of is missing my point. But I see that we do understand each other.

[Lemur866]

So, Buttonjockey, when Martin Luther King sat down in a white-only segregated lunchroom, and got arrested for it, you cheered?

After all, he broke the law. And breaking the law is always wrong.

So if someone with AIDS or cancer smoked pot to alleviate their symptoms, you'd be in favor of tossing them in jail? They broke the law, they should pay, no matter what the circumstances?

Every kid who drank under age should go to jail?

When the law conflicts with morality, it might be prudent to obey the law, but it is not immoral to break the law. The law was made for man, not man for the law.

[dgrdfd]

Also, regarding services received and not paid for by immigrants, might I direct your attention to this report (http://www.urban.org/publications/305184.html#V), which states in part (bolding mine):


and:


Granted, this study examines the impact of immigration of all kinds, but it is not safe to assume that illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. Many of them do, in fact.


But compare it to the illegals: (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html)


Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. . .

The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.


Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.


If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.


With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments — not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.

[RoniaBorkason]

My first Pit post! Scary!
I think that the churches mentioned in the OP are doing their duty by opposing a law they think is immoral, and are doing so responsibly by doing it publicly, so that it makes their position . . . obvious? observable? The point being, they are engaging in a time-honored American tradition - peaceful civil disobedience. Also, trial by media, but that is less time-honored and not exclusively American.
Yes, they are engaging in and advocating support of an illegal activity. No, it is not necessarily wrong. Illegal, bad, and wrong are not always the same, just as legal, good, and right are not. They have an obligation to their own principles to advocate the change of laws they find bad or wrong to conform to what they understand as good and right.
Would the federal agents be doing an acceptable thing by entering the churches and removing the illegal immigrants? It would be legal (I'm assuming they have a warrant), and could be right and good, depending on their interpretation of the goodness and rightness of our laws on immigration.
Personally, while agreeing that illegal immigration is, in fact, illegal and so should not be done in general, and that the US should have some sort of formal entry and registration system, I think that the US's immigration laws are excessively constraining of both US business needs and the general desire of what is obviously a whole lot of people. So, legal, right, and bad.

[Leaper]

I have to admit, I'm kind of uncomfortable with the very idea of church sanctuary in this day and age. I just wonder what'll happen when a church decides to give sanctuary to an abortion clinic bomber or somesuch...

[Lemur866]

Except there is no such thing as church sanctuary in this day and age. Churches have no such legal status. The only thing preventing just getting a search warrant and entering the churches is that it would be bad publicity.

[straight man]

I have to admit, I'm kind of uncomfortable with the very idea of church sanctuary in this day and age. I just wonder what'll happen when a church decides to give sanctuary to an abortion clinic bomber or somesuch...
The police will arrest the bomber and the rest of us Christians will shake our heads at our brothers and life will go on. The government can generally get away with heavy action on churches if it's clearly in the public interest (look at Warren Jeff's arrest or the mess in Waco, for pity's sake!)

I'm not arguing otherwise. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s", is all I'm saying.
Surely you realize that this quote simply instructs Christians to pay taxes, even when their government/local ruling empire does nasty things with the money? It in no way implies that Christians can't break laws. Actually, just being a Christian is breaking the laws of many countries, along with proselytizing.

(Not that this is relevant, but I'm a legal immigrant who in no way objects to the US government enforcing its immigration laws, though they really need to be liberalized and opened up to more immigrants. But this has to be the dumbest pitting ever.)

[straight man]

Sorry, should add the caveat that Jeffs is a Fundamentalist LDS, so the majority of other Christians don't regard him as Christian at all. Actually, the Branch Davidians were pretty far out there. But, truth be told, anyone hiding an abortion clinic bomber is pretty far out there too.

Actually, anyone remember any real Christian anger at the investigations of priests for paedophilia? I certainly remember anger at the Catholic church...

[LilShieste]

Nah, if the federal agents did decide to break into the church, I would say, "they were perfectly within their rights to do so, but they did an immoral thing."
This is where I start to get torn. If the feds arrested the immigrants, and did something really bad (like feed them to Trogdor or something), then I would completely agree that what they did was immoral. If they were just deported, though, I wouldn't really see it as a moral problem.

Well, the illegal immigrants are indeed rendering unto Caesar.
Ok, I probably shouldn't have used that quote. I wasn't trying to use it in its original sense (i.e., regarding taxes).

The only thing I am accusing you of is missing my point. But I see that we do understand each other.
Sorry for jumping to conclusions. I thought you were thinking something a little more sinister. ;)


LilShieste

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

If they were just deported, though, I wouldn't really see it as a moral problem.

Well, it can become a moral problem if they have kids (who might be American citizens by virtue of being born here) or ties to the community, or a girlfrined/boyfriend, or if they have an issue that is short of grounds for asylum but could lead to a bad situation back home.

It's not as black-and-white as it may seem. And I prefer to err on the side of compassion for people who have less power and privilege than I do.

[LilShieste]

So, Buttonjockey, when Martin Luther King sat down in a white-only segregated lunchroom, and got arrested for it, you cheered?
I know this was directed at buttonjockey308, but since I seem to share his sentiments on this matter - no, I wouldn't have cheered.

After all, he broke the law. And breaking the law is always wrong.
Breaking the law is, of course, not always wrong. However, it is always illegal.

So if someone with AIDS or cancer smoked pot to alleviate their symptoms, you'd be in favor of tossing them in jail? They broke the law, they should pay, no matter what the circumstances?
Yes, that's a risk they need to be willing to take. Until the legislation is properly changed to accommodate this type of thing.

Every kid who drank under age should go to jail?
If they're caught, they should be punished according to the appropriate laws.

When the law conflicts with morality, it might be prudent to obey the law, but it is not immoral to break the law. The law was made for man, not man for the law.
You're exactly right. And if people have a problem with a law, they need to not only demonstrate civil disobedience, but also work to change the law.


LilShieste

[Guinastasia]

I'm sort of undecided on immigration policy in general -- I'm not for amnesty but realize it is foolhardy to think that we can just sweep out millions of illegal immigrants with more law enforcement -- but good lord, man, criticizing churches for boarding people fleeing discriminant violence in war-torn Central America is just... heartless.

And when you consider that some of the problems in Latin America were the result of U.S. intervention, well, that just makes it even more justified.

[LilShieste]

My first Pit post! Scary!
Just remember to keep your back to the wall. ;)

Surely you realize that this quote simply instructs Christians to pay taxes, even when their government/local ruling empire does nasty things with the money? It in no way implies that Christians can't break laws. Actually, just being a Christian is breaking the laws of many countries, along with proselytizing.
I am definitely aware of the origins of the quote, but was aiming to use it in a slightly different way (to help demonstrate the difference between immoral and illegal). That obviously flew as well as a brick with wings, though.

Well, it can become a moral problem if they have kids (who might be American citizens by virtue of being born here) or ties to the community, or a girlfrined/boyfriend, or if they have an issue that is short of grounds for asylum but could lead to a bad situation back home.

It's not as black-and-white as it may seem. And I prefer to err on the side of compassion for people who have less power and privilege than I do.
I concede that the moral issue isn't always black and white (and rarely is). There are people who painstakingly completed the immigration program legally, though, just so they wouldn't potentially force themselves into situations like you mentioned.

If we need to modify our laws to accommodate some of these situations, then we should try and do so. Until that happens, they're going to have to live with the punishments that we currently have for our laws.


LilShieste

[Lizard]

The nature of our system is such that if you get enough people around to your way of thinking, you can make your way of thinking into the law. Because one position is currently dominant,that does not make that position the virtuous one. If one intends to break the law, one can always legislate the conflict away.


I was not aware the U.S. Constitution could be legislated away.

[Miller]

If we need to modify our laws to accommodate some of these situations, then we should try and do so. Until that happens, they're going to have to live with the punishments that we currently have for our laws.


True. On the other hand, because the laws regarding immigration are so fundamentally broken, and because I do not have any sort of responsibility to enforce those laws, I have no problem at all cheering on those who are able to succesfully flaunt those laws, and encouraging those who help them do so.

I was not aware the U.S. Constitution could be legislated away.

What's the constitutional issue, here?

[LilShieste]

True. On the other hand, because the laws regarding immigration are so fundamentally broken, and because I do not have any sort of responsibility to enforce those laws, I have no problem at all cheering on those who are able to succesfully flaunt those laws, and encouraging those who help them do so.
Fair enough.

And you would agree that it is in the best interest of all parties involved to fix the broken immigration laws, right? ISTM that this particular part should be getting more focus than it's actually getting.


LilShieste

[Larry Borgia]

I have to say I'm with the conservatives on this one. Even if you think our immigration laws need reform--and they almost certainly do--unless you think we should completely dismantle our borders we're going to have some sort of rules. There are going to be people who break those rules, and those people are going to have to be deported, punished, whatever. Until Immigration laws are reformed we have to stick with the ones we have. The alternative is anarchy.

[LilShieste]

I have to say I'm with the conservatives on this one.
Who you callin' conservative? :p


LilShieste

[Vinyl Turnip]

Well, it can become a moral problem if they have kids (who might be American citizens by virtue of being born here) or ties to the community, or a girlfrined/boyfriend, or if they have an issue that is short of grounds for asylum but could lead to a bad situation back home.

Yes, and it sucks for the kids who are affected. Fugitive criminals in the U.S. also sometimes marry and raise families, and it sucks for their families when the father is finally apprehended, but that fact alone shouldn't obviate the fact that they've committed a crime, or render them untouchable.

I also believe immigration law is in dire need of reform, but the answer is not to encourage ignoring the law altogether— and the attempts here to equate immigration scofflaws with civil rights or women's suffrage activists are in extremely poor taste at best, completely disingenuous at worst.

[hawksgirl]

and the attempts here to equate immigration scofflaws with civil rights or women's suffrage activists are in extremely poor taste at best, completely disingenuous at worst.
Why?

[Vinyl Turnip]

Why?

Because both of those specifically addressed unequal treatment of United States citizens, for one thing. Not foreign nationals who bypass legal entry procedures altogether, who are not citizens, who know full well they are breaking the law of this country by their presence, and yet clamor for the same rights and privileges afforded to legal residents— rights that would certainly not be granted unconditionally to U.S. emigrants to their country, were the situation reversed.

I am far from the "flag-waving patriot" type, and people very close to me were affected by this very issue, but I agree with Larry that complete anarchy, with open borders and absolutely no record of who enters and leaves, is not a valid substitute for reform.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

I also believe immigration law is in dire need of reform, but the answer is not to encourage ignoring the law altogether— and the attempts here to equate immigration scofflaws with civil rights or women's suffrage activists are in extremely poor taste at best, completely disingenuous at worst.

Care to explain that attack?

[Larry Borgia]

Care to explain that attack?He did. It's a degree short of Godwin. It's absurd to say that supporting immigration laws means you also support denying blacks or women civil rights. Every country in the world needs some sort of immigration law.

[Lemur866]

Yeah, but so are the idiotic comparisons of illegal alients to murders. Yes, we need to control our borders. But anyone who compares illegal immigrants to murderers is an asshole.

My point was that breaking the law can be moral or immoral. In most cases it's better to obey the law even if you disagree with the law, and try to change the law. In other cases, obeying the law is immoral.

As for the contention that these churches need to work to change US immigration law rather than shelter illegal immigrants, well, perhaps you've noticed those marches? You don't think churches that shelter illegal immigrants also work to liberalize US immigraiton policy?

I'm not in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, but pretending that churches that shelter illegal immigrants are the equivalent of churches sheltering murderers and terrorists marks you as an asshole. A bigot. A fucking dork. As I said, the cops are legally free to simply get a warrant, go on church grounds, and arrest everyone there and deport those who are here illegally. Why won't they do that? Because they're afraid if they do that they'd look like assholes, and they don't wanna look like assholes.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

He did. It's a degree short of Godwin. It's absurd to say that supporting immigration laws means you also support denying blacks or women civil rights.

Except you're excluding a lot of middle and totally misreading me in order to get to the point where you would accuse me of something like that. I don't know whether that's intentional or not; I hope it isn't.

In case you're not inclined to read for comprehension (it is, after all, late), my point was simply that disenfranchisement under the law forces the disenfranchised group to resort to extralegal peaceful activity in order to validate their existence as a bloc; furthermore, any political power that a disenfranchised block wishes to exercise must often be done by proxy, namely, those currently in possession of the franchise.

THUS, I said that illegal immigrants could not be blamed for using the same tactics that blacks or women did when they found themselves in similar positions, namely establishing themselves as viable members of the community, demanding protection/recognition under any laws that could be made to apply to them, and by using abolitionists or male suffragists to advance their positions in legislative bodies.

Where in the world you managed to pull your interpretation from is beyond me.


As I said, the cops are legally free to simply get a warrant, go on church grounds, and arrest everyone there and deport those who are here illegally. Why won't they do that? Because they're afraid if they do that they'd look like assholes, and they don't wanna look like assholes.

And that's POWER. That, right there, is peaceful, extralegal means, and I support it, purely as an exercise in politics. It goes against the rule of law, sure. But it doesn't do so violently or disruptively. This isn't the FALN. They're advancing social change the best peaceful way they can.

[Larry Borgia]

Happy Scrappy hero Pup, do you believe we should not have immigration laws at all? If that's your position, ok, I guess. If it isn't, what should happen to those who break those laws?

[Carol Stream]

Well, it can become a moral problem if they have kids (who might be American citizens by virtue of being born here) or ties to the community, or a girlfrined/boyfriend, or if they have an issue that is short of grounds for asylum but could lead to a bad situation back home.

It's not as black-and-white as it may seem. And I prefer to err on the side of compassion for people who have less power and privilege than I do.

How far do you take this stance, though? If someone commits murder, is it a moral problem to lock them up for 20-life? What if they have kids, ties to the community, a boyfriend/girlfriend, or "issues" back home? How is deporting someone any different, morally? Both punishments seem to fit the crime.

Murder? Imprisonment.
Illegal immigration? Deportation

Why should having children, or a girlfriend! change the consequences of committing the crime?

[The Hamster King]

Because both of those specifically addressed unequal treatment of United States citizens, for one thing.So you disagree with the efforts of the abolitionists then? After all they were in favor of flouting U.S. law to help non-citizens ... .

U.S. immigration law is an unfair mess. As long as that situation holds I find it very hard to condemn a church for making a public stand on the side of compassion.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Happy Scrappy hero Pup, do you believe we should not have immigration laws at all? If that's your position, ok, I guess. If it isn't, what should happen to those who break those laws?

Of course I believe that we should have immigration laws.

I do think, however, that those we do have are too piecemeal in their implementation and too rigid in their enforcement. The thing is, an entire industry and an entire economic system has sprung up around illegal immigrants, from piecework to odd jobs to landscaping, and so on. American business actively encourages this. Furthermore, the idea of "protecting society" or "our way of life" doesn't hold up in what is an immigrant nation.

I'm not advocating against the rule of law, and I'm not advocating for porous borders. I am saying that our society has created an "attractive nuisance," and it would be irresponsible of us to refuse to acknowledge that.

If I had the immigration laws to rewrite, I'd want to do a whole lot of research before I decided what would be punishable and how. And while the "visiting work visa" or whatever they're calling it these days, doesn't strike me as the way to go, it's a start.


How far do you take this stance, though? If someone commits murder, is it a moral problem to lock them up for 20-life? What if they have kids, ties to the community, a boyfriend/girlfriend, or "issues" back home? How is deporting someone any different, morally? Both punishments seem to fit the crime.

Murder? Imprisonment.
Illegal immigration? Deportation

Why should having children, or a girlfriend! change the consequences of committing the crime?

You cannot seriously be asking me to compare murder and illegal immigration.

One of the side products of murder is not the creation of a family and integration into society. Illegal immigration is an entirely different type of crime.

But let's do a little balancing test, you and I, and I'll show you where I fall, and you can decide to agree or disagree, as you wish. Let us balance the benefits to society against the harm done to the individual and society to determine what is appropriate.

You know what? Let's not. It would take too long. Short version: I think you and I can both agree that the societal value of removing a murderer from the general population is of greater weight than allowing a murderer to remain with his family.

The question is, do you agree that the societal value of removing a person who is working to support a family from his family?

The general deterrence is the same in both cases- we want to send a message that we don't like the activity. But I would trade someone's liberty for the greater societal value of condemning murder long before I would for illegal immigration. The "crime" is not worth its collateral effects, to me.

[buttonjockey308]

And what I and the Church are saying is that when the action that the secular government is taking is unjust, it should be checked.

Controlling your borders and removing those who crossed them against existing law is not necessarily unjust, in fact, it is doing the work of the people, which is what government DOES. The church can claim they're doing "God's work" but they are ALSO breaking the law. Frankly, our immigration policy is lax in comparison to other countries. There is a legal way to emigrate to the US, it's hard, but it can be done, truly we are doing a disservice to those who follow the rules by NOT enforcing the rules we have


No, it might not, but here it is taking a stand based on what it believes to be the moral thing to do. And it is taking a stand where it has power and can act in a way that it thinks is moral, in order to check an immoral act.

No, it DOES not IMHO, but here, while taking a stand the church is also accessory to a federal crime. The fact is that the church has no "power" to do this, they have decided to break the law, and in doing so, disregarded the will of the people they claim to serve.


No, the church should NOT. The Church follows God's law, not man's. This is what got Archbishop Romero martyred, among others. The Church's JOB is to stand for what is moral.

Look bub, the church follows BOTH the law of man and God's law. Simply saying "we answer to a higher authority" doesn't automatically give the church a pass, although the Catholics thought that putting filthy pederastic bastards undercover was a better "moral" thing to do, and it's costing them dearly, which I think is just. Further, you cannot possibly dare to compare the American immigration situation with the war in El Salvador in the 70's and 80s can you?
I don't see 3,000 people a month dying in wartime violence, I don't see bodies clogging streams. That's out of order.


Saying that illegal imigrants ought to be treated the same as carjackers is indeed asserting that all criminals are alike.

To the end that they are criminals, yes, to the end that all punishments should be the same, no. I meant, and perhaps did not say concisely enough, that petty thieves and mass murderers are both criminals, but both do not deserve the same punishment.


The Church's business and the business of state both involve the lives of men. The Church IS doing its business here.

But the business of the state involves ALL men, while the business of the church involves SOME men. The law of man is applied to EVERY man woman and child, while what you call God's law is applied to only those to believe.

[Scissorjack]

Sanctuary!
Sanctuary!
Sanctuary much!

[Carol Stream]

You cannot seriously be asking me to compare murder and illegal immigration.

No, and I never said that. I'm talking about the punishment for breaking our laws. Children are separated from their families all the time when a parent goes to jail, is sending parents to jail immoral? Or is it only immoral when the parent is deported? If so, why do you draw that distinction?

[straight man]

But the business of the state involves ALL men, while the business of the church involves SOME men. The law of man is applied to EVERY man woman and child, while what you call God's law is applied to only those to believe.
So what, the church was forcing people to help them hide illegal immigrants at gunpoint or something?

Actually, apart from your implied conclusion not following from your premise, it's simply ridiculous to claim that God's law only applies to some people. Only some people follow it – depending on whether they're right or not, it either applies to absolutely everybody or absolutely no-one. Though, if you really want to get picky, Paul makes it clear in Romans that "law" is no no longer a part of morality, so God's "law" really no longer exists.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

Further, you cannot possibly dare to compare the American immigration situation with the war in El Salvador in the 70's and 80s can you?
I don't see 3,000 people a month dying in wartime violence, I don't see bodies clogging streams. That's out of order.

Of course I can. I just did. Who are you to tell me what's out of order and what's not? Especially when you're advocating wildly dispropotionate punishments yourself?

Your assertion that a law is justified by its own existence is flawed.

"Because it's the law" is not a valid counterargument.

The fact is that the church has no "power" to do this, they have decided to break the law, and in doing so, disregarded the will of the people they claim to serve.

Of course they have the power to do this. They're doing it, aren't they? It might be against the law, but that's not synonymous with "impossible."

You can't seriously be expecting to make a valid comparison between "the people" as the embodiment of government and "all men," can you? The Church has taken a stand against laws it feels to be unjust on dozens of occasions, whether you want to accept the comparisons as valid or not. it's doing that here. You cannot POSSIBLY be making the contention that harboring an illegal immigrant is UNJUST. Can you?


I can't seem to get past your implict assertion that a law is validated by its own existence. Please explain this to me, because I'm floored by it.


Children are separated from their families all the time when a parent goes to jail, is sending parents to jail immoral? Or is it only immoral when the parent is deported? If so, why do you draw that distinction?

Did you read the rest of my response to you?

[Vinyl Turnip]

So you disagree with the efforts of the abolitionists then? After all they were in favor of flouting U.S. law to help non-citizens ... .

This ain't the Underground Railroad, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way. Illegal immigrants are not being brought here involuntarily, enslaved for generations, sold as chattel, beaten and killed at will. If they were, I would support any means to stop it.

They're coming here of their own free will, fully cognizant that they are breaking the law and could be deported if caught. Not all, but the overwhelming majority come for simple economic reasons (not for political asylum, to flee from famine or war).

I fully believe that drug laws are illogical, patently unfair, harmful to society, and that drugs should be legalized. However, I also understand that if I flout the law by openly buying and using drugs, I can be arrested, and I would not expect to hide myself in a church when they came for me.

[Larry Borgia]

So you disagree with the efforts of the abolitionists then? After all they were in favor of flouting U.S. law to help non-citizens ... .

U.S. immigration law is an unfair mess. As long as that situation holds I find it very hard to condemn a church for making a public stand on the side of compassion.The Abolitionists helping people who were being kept as slaves, and were trying to gain freedom. Unless you equate being a Mexican (or wherever) citizen with being a slave this is a pretty silly analogy. Slaves wanted their freedom, Illegal Immigrants want a somewhat better paying job.

[Liberal]

This sanctuary thing is not quite the same as sweeping out millions of illegal immigrants. It's about actually apprehending someone who has knowingly broken the law, has been identified as such, and is seeking assistance from a third party who seems to think they are above the law.Due respect and no comment on you personally or your beliefs, but I hate that phrase "above the law" and everything it conveys. Human beings ARE above the law, goddamit. If I may steal from Jesus: The law is made for man, not man for the law.

Laws that are unethical ought to be made right. It ought not to be for a man to have to conform to an unethical law. The church is doing the right thing here. An "illegal immigrant" is illegal only because magistrates have stolen land from others, drawn lines on maps, and now guard the lines with their armies.

[Larry Borgia]

Of course I believe that we should have immigration laws.

I do think, however, that those we do have are too piecemeal in their implementation and too rigid in their enforcement. The thing is, an entire industry and an entire economic system has sprung up around illegal immigrants, from piecework to odd jobs to landscaping, and so on. American business actively encourages this. Furthermore, the idea of "protecting society" or "our way of life" doesn't hold up in what is an immigrant nation.

I'm not advocating against the rule of law, and I'm not advocating for porous borders. I am saying that our society has created an "attractive nuisance," and it would be irresponsible of us to refuse to acknowledge that.

If I had the immigration laws to rewrite, I'd want to do a whole lot of research before I decided what would be punishable and how. And while the "visiting work visa" or whatever they're calling it these days, doesn't strike me as the way to go, it's a start.

I agree with most of this. I certainly agree it's hypoctritical and counterproductive to depend on illegal immigrants for so much work and at the same time treat them like crap. We should reform our laws, possibly through guest visas or through some other system. My only beef is people comparing Illegals to slaves or other oppressed people. They came here voluntarily and knew they were breaking U.S. law.

[The Hamster King]

This ain't the Underground Railroad, no matter how hard you try to spin it that way. Illegal immigrants are not being brought here involuntarily, enslaved for generations, sold as chattel, beaten and killed at will. If they were, I would support any means to stop it.My point is that you seemed to put great stock in the fact that the immigrants aren't citizens. I'm just pointing out that the same argument could have been used against the abolitionists.

The Bill of Rights makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. The Declaration of Independence declares that ALL men have certain inalienable rights. The argument that rights in the United States are reserved for citizens only runs counter to the founding principles of the nation.

[buttonjockey308]

Of course I can. I just did. Who are you to tell me what's out of order and what's not? Especially when you're advocating wildly dispropotionate punishments yourself?

We're having a debate, I believe you're out of order comparing the slaughter of innocents in a war-torn El Salvador to the US Immigration debate. I believe doing so does a disservice to those who died at the hands of El Salvadoran death squads, at the same time comparing our own federal agents to them, THAT is out of order. Further, I am NOT advocating disproportionate punishments, I am advocating deportation for illegal immigrants, it is a punishment they KNOWINGLY face when they come to our country illegally.


Your assertion that a law is justified by its own existence is flawed.

"Because it's the law" is not a valid counterargument.

Flawed how? The representatives of the citizenry chose these laws, if those same representatives decide to listen to the citizenry and change the laws, then the system is precisely balanced, and the laws are justified by their existance. Period.

Because it's the law is a PRECISE counterargument. If you're going 65 in a 35 zone because you think God wants you to, and you get pulled over and ticketed, it is ''because it's the law''. God carries no influence with a radar gun, pal.

Of course they have the power to do this. They're doing it, aren't they? It might be against the law, but that's not synonymous with "impossible."

I have the WILL to do anything, I have the POWER to do only a few things. The church has the will, but not the authority to harbor fugitives.

You can't seriously be expecting to make a valid comparison between "the people" as the embodiment of government and "all men," can you? The Church has taken a stand against laws it feels to be unjust on dozens of occasions, whether you want to accept the comparisons as valid or not. it's doing that here. You cannot POSSIBLY be making the contention that harboring an illegal immigrant is UNJUST. Can you?

Yes, I can and have. "The People" as embodiment of government represents ALL MEN, those that are believers in God, and those that are not, alike. God's law is applicable to those that choose it's path. God as you believe him/her/it to be is alike but seperate from what I believe him/her/it to be. You can believe with all your being that the law of the Christian God applies to every single person on earth, there are many that will disagree with you. The law of man, (i.e. the people as the embodiment of government) is meant to deal with EVERYBODY, despite beliefs, because even if you THINK you know what's next, friend, I guarantee you don't KNOW until you get there. Until then, you're walking on faith, and hey, if that's your thing, more power to you, but there are many other considerations in society.

I am making the contention that harboring an illegal immigrant is ILLEGAL, that is against the laws of society, the laws of ALL MEN in our country, and that although the church believes the laws unjust, they should be ready to accept punishment for flauting it. I KNOW the immigration laws are flawed, extremely so, but flaws do not exempt one person, NOT ONE, from the enforcement thereof.

Further, the rhetoric about illegal immigrants as equal to African slaves is absolute and total bullshit. I cannot think of a more outlandish comparison than that one. We KNOW slavery is wrong, we also know that uncontrolled immigration is a threat to our own safety and security. The people that came before us built what some (including myself) consider to be the greatest nation on the face of the earth, which is why everyone wants to be here, but quite simply, we can't allow everyone who wants to, to come live here without some check and balance system.

Unchecked immigration will, not probably, maybe or potentially, but WILL, and in fact has cause(d) us great harm. Personally, I would rather help, say, Mexico fix their economic problems and create a better life for the citizens of Mexico in their proud homeland, than have them break our laws and face unnecessary punishment.

To Wit. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069)

[Zeriel]

I have the WILL to do anything, I have the POWER to do only a few things. The church has the will, but not the authority to harbor fugitives.

Bizarre comparison here, I think. After all, if the Church is doing it, and no one is preventing them from doing it, then they de facto have the power to do it.

Alternately phrased, the Church has the power but not the authority to offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants, and the government has both the power and the authority to search the churches and deport any illegals.

I just hate to see perfectly good debates hang up on terminology nitpickery.

[Vinyl Turnip]

My point is that you seemed to put great stock in the fact that the immigrants aren't citizens. I'm just pointing out that the same argument could have been used against the abolitionists.

Yes, and that's why I explained further how the situations are not the same, despite the fact that non-citizens are involved in both cases.

The argument that rights in the United States are reserved for citizens only runs counter to the founding principles of the nation.

I agree. That's why I didn't make that argument.

I do not, however, believe that the rights of illegal aliens include (or should include) the right to vote, or the right to sneak across the border without any registration process or record of identification, to set up residence, and to expect to be granted legal resident status by default, simply because they manage to elude capture for an extended period of time or because they bear children here.

[DanBlather]

Weren't slaves citizens?

[cowgirl]

I believe you're out of order comparing the slaughter of innocents in a war-torn El Salvador to the US Immigration debate. So you're saying that none of the "illegal immigrants" currently troubling the US come from war-torn places where innocents are slaughtered?

None? Are you sure?

If someone could demonstrate that there are some people fleeing conditions that are precisely analogous to war-torn El Salvador, who often end up as "illegal immigrants" in the US, would you change your position? (I just want to know if it's worth digging up cites ...)

If not, why not?

[The Hamster King]

Weren't slaves citizens?Not according to Dred Scott. The 14th Amendment fixed that.

[Miller]

Frankly, our immigration policy is lax in comparison to other countries.

So what? The US also has more legal protections for women and minorities than other countries. This does not mean that there's no reason not to strengthen or extend those protections further. Our immigration policies, likewise, are much looser than many other nations. This does not mean that they do not need to be loosened further.

Further, I am NOT advocating disproportionate punishments, I am advocating deportation for illegal immigrants, it is a punishment they KNOWINGLY face when they come to our country illegally.

Which is disproportionate to the exceedingly minor crime of violating our byzantine and illogical immigration laws. Someone who comes here wanting to work, contribute to society, and make a better life for their family doesn't deserve to be deported, no matter what means they used to get here. Yes, we do need immigration laws to keep out legitimate criminals, smugglers, terrorists, and so forth. Those people deserve to be deported, at the very least. People coming here with no intention to harm, deserve better. Until the law can be changed to differentiate between these two groups of people, the law does not deserve recognition.

[Vinyl Turnip]

So you're saying that none of the "illegal immigrants" currently troubling the US come from war-torn places where innocents are slaughtered?

None? Are you sure?

This is obviously untrue, but I think we can agree that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants to the U.S. do not fall into this category— and while it is likely flawed and also in need of some reform, there is a system in place for immigrants from war-torn countries to apply for political asylum legally, based on refugee status.

[The Hamster King]

I agree. That's why I didn't make that argument.I was responding specifically to the post where you said:

Because both of those specifically addressed unequal treatment of United States citizens, for one thing. Not foreign nationals who bypass legal entry procedures altogether, who are not citizens, who know full well they are breaking the law of this country by their presence, and yet clamor for the same rights and privileges afforded to legal residents— rights that would certainly not be granted unconditionally to U.S. emigrants to their country, were the situation reversed.It certainly sounds to me that you were arguing that the struggles for black civil rights and women's suffrage were different because they involved the civil rights of citizens. My point is that civil rights are not just for citizens, they are for all people under U.S. jurisdiction. So saying "well this is different because they're not citizens" really doesn't fly.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Which is disproportionate to the exceedingly minor crime of violating our byzantine and illogical immigration laws.

This description is frequently applied to our tax code as well. Do you support "tax protestors" who refuse to file or pay anything, simply because of the complexity of the law?

[Vinyl Turnip]

It certainly sounds to me that you were arguing that the struggles for black civil rights and women's suffrage were different because they involved the civil rights of citizens. My point is that civil rights are not just for citizens, they are for all people under U.S. jurisdiction.

Yes, and if you would like me to continue agreeing with you on that point, you may continue to repeat it. The real issue seems to be that we have different notions of what "civil rights" mean for illegal immigrants. I do not believe that every anonymous Joe (or Jose) who strolls across the border into this country should automatically be handed a souvenir American flag and U.S. passport and granted all full legal rights that are afforded to citizens, as a reward for entering illegally. If you think they should, we have a fundamental disagreement.

[LilShieste]

Due respect and no comment on you personally or your beliefs, but I hate that phrase "above the law" and everything it conveys. Human beings ARE above the law, goddamit. If I may steal from Jesus: The law is made for man, not man for the law.
If human beings are above the law, then why do we even bother with them? Of course law is made for man - that's how these immigration laws came into place. If there are problems, then "man should fix the law."

Laws that are unethical ought to be made right. It ought not to be for a man to have to conform to an unethical law.
Absolutely. Man doesn't have to conform to unethical laws. But as long as they are laws, non-conformance will have legal ramifications.

The church is doing the right thing here. An "illegal immigrant" is illegal only because magistrates have stolen land from others, drawn lines on maps, and now guard the lines with their armies.
This last statement seems to suggest that you don't agree with immigration laws at all. Is that true? :confused:

So you're saying that none of the "illegal immigrants" currently troubling the US come from war-torn places where innocents are slaughtered?

None? Are you sure?
As VT has already pointed out: no one is saying that there aren't some illegal immigrants who fall into that category. The majority, though, do not.

If someone could demonstrate that there are some people fleeing conditions that are precisely analogous to war-torn El Salvador, who often end up as "illegal immigrants" in the US, would you change your position? (I just want to know if it's worth digging up cites ...)

If not, why not?
And again, as VT has already mentioned, there are already provisions in place to accommodate scenarios like this.

We're not saying that we don't want immigrants over here - we just want them to do so legally. If there are problems with the process (and I acknowledge that there are many), then we need to fix them. We can't let it be a free-for-all until then, though.


LilShieste

[Wee Bairn]

I would just like to throw out that its really really easy for someone born in a free, prosperous country, just out of dumb luck, to sit and tell someone born in a third world shithole to sit and wait and try and enter the country legally.

For a moment, put yourself in the illegal aliens shoes, and think of how you would feel. All most of these people want is to be able to have some semblance of the normal free life that most people here have. They are willing to toil 15 hours a day, seven days a week at manual labor and live 10 men in a house with few women to do so. Are some of them going to break the law- of course.

Like Elvis said "before you accuse, criticize and abuse, walk a mile in my shoes".

So for once, I say a church is doing something right.

[buttonjockey308]

How absolute do you consider this principle to be?

As absolute as any other law at the time that the law is valid. If the law is unjust, then there are remedies for it, but the church, at least to my thinking, ought not be involved in the commission of a crime in a society such as ours when they are provided such protection.

[Liberal]

This last statement seems to suggest that you don't agree with immigration laws at all. Is that true?I don't agree with him on everything, but Thomas Jefferson captured my feelings on this matter perfectly: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

(Emphasis mine.)

[LilShieste]

Which is disproportionate to the exceedingly minor crime of violating our byzantine and illogical immigration laws. Someone who comes here wanting to work, contribute to society, and make a better life for their family doesn't deserve to be deported, no matter what means they used to get here.
Someone who comes here wanting to work, contribute to society, and make a better life for their family also doesn't deserve to be exploited by American employers, who figure they can just pay these immigrants cents on the dollar for their labor. Immigrants who come the U.S. legally are granted protections against things like this.

Yes, we do need immigration laws to keep out legitimate criminals, smugglers, terrorists, and so forth. Those people deserve to be deported, at the very least.
I don't think immigration laws should just be in place as a method of screening immigrants. I think they carry additional responsibilities as well, like controlling the amount of immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship each year.


People coming here with no intention to harm, deserve better.
They absolutely deserve better. Coming here legally helps them with that.

Until the law can be changed to differentiate between these two groups of people, the law does not deserve recognition.
So instead of letting in some of the drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., let's go ahead and open up our borders completely, until we figure this out. This sounds like a grave mistake, to me.


LilShieste

[buttonjockey308]

So you're saying that none of the "illegal immigrants" currently troubling the US come from war-torn places where innocents are slaughtered?

None? Are you sure?

If someone could demonstrate that there are some people fleeing conditions that are precisely analogous to war-torn El Salvador, who often end up as "illegal immigrants" in the US, would you change your position? (I just want to know if it's worth digging up cites ...)

If not, why not?

No, that's not what I'm saying. We offer political asylum in those cases, and there are agencies who work to make that immigration legal. Someone running from massacre in Darfur, where we know "death squads" still exist should be fast-tracked, should they wish to become an american citizen.

Someone slipping over the border from Michoacan to work with his friends or family isn't being persecuted. He has a life, he wants a better one, which no one in their right mind can blame him for, and I have no problem with, as long as it is done legally

[buttonjockey308]

I would just like to throw out that its really really easy for someone born in a free, prosperous country, just out of dumb luck, to sit and tell someone born in a third world shithole to sit and wait and try and enter the country legally.

For a moment, put yourself in the illegal aliens shoes, and think of how you would feel. All most of these people want is to be able to have some semblance of the normal free life that most people here have. They are willing to toil 15 hours a day, seven days a week at manual labor and live 10 men in a house with few women to do so. Are some of them going to break the law- of course.

Like Elvis said "before you accuse, criticize and abuse, walk a mile in my shoes".

So for once, I say a church is doing something right.

Yes, it IS easy, you're right, but history provides us with the best lessons, lessons that some would ignore to the complete detriment of our society.

We could bring 300 million people here from all over the third world, and the quality of life would go from a free prosperous country, to the NEXT third world shithole. Like it or not, we cannot continue to absorb the overflow of the world's population explosion. There MUST be checks in place, and until we get the whole thing sorted out, the church, IMO, has come down on the wrong side of the line.

[Miller]

Someone who comes here wanting to work, contribute to society, and make a better life for their family also doesn't deserve to be exploited by American employers, who figure they can just pay these immigrants cents on the dollar for their labor. Immigrants who come the U.S. legally are granted protections against things like this.

Yes, they are protected. So should illegals. But because of our stupid immigration laws, they are not. I thought you were on the OP's side in this debate? This seems to be a better argument for the opposition.

They absolutely deserve better. Coming here legally helps them with that.

If they could come here legally, don't you think they would do that?

[Wee Bairn]

And it really pisses me off to hear an asshole sellout like Governor Ah-nold talk about how aliens should enter the country legally, like he did. Asshole, you were allowed in beacause of your status as a bodybuilder, IIRC. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be an athlete or entertainer. Why is it that the country allows famous people here so easily, but if you're a regular Joe, wait a decade, we're working on it.

LilShieste, so you're saying an illegal who makes ten cents an hour back home, but two dollars an hour here or whatever, should wait back home earning the ten cents until they can come legally and make the legal minimum wage?

[LilShieste]

For a moment, put yourself in the illegal aliens shoes, and think of how you would feel. All most of these people want is to be able to have some semblance of the normal free life that most people here have. They are willing to toil 15 hours a day, seven days a week at manual labor and live 10 men in a house with few women to do so. Are some of them going to break the law- of course.
I have imagined myself in their shoes. I can't imagine trying to come to a country, though, and not respecting it's immigration laws.

Your post reminds me of a TV show I saw somewhat recently (it might have even been something like Trading Spouses :eek: ). Basically, a U.S. citizen switched spots with an illegal immigrant for about a week. The U.S. citizen was a staunch supporter of immigration laws.

By the end of the episode, I had a lot of sympathy for the illegal immigrants. It's indisputable that a lot of them have an extreme passion to become citizens of this country. This did not change my views on their being here illegally, though. I couldn't help thinking, "Man, if they were legal immigrants they would be getting paid a lot more, and working a lot less. They would be able to afford better things for their family, and spend more time with their family. I really wish they were here legally."

I don't agree with him on everything, but Thomas Jefferson captured my feelings on this matter perfectly: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
How is this a commission of aggression on the equal rights of the illegal immigrants? Our laws allow immigrants to come to our country legally. We're giving them the opportunity to do so. They choose not to, for whatever reason.

Would it be an act of aggression on the equal rights of an illegal immigrant, if they were arrested and deported for murdering someone? We're talking about punishment for a crime, not the oppression of a race or something.


LilShieste

[pizzabrat]

I would just like to throw out that its really really easy for someone born in a free, prosperous country, just out of dumb luck, to sit and tell someone born in a third world shithole to sit and wait and try and enter the country legally.

For a moment, put yourself in the illegal aliens shoes, and think of how you would feel. All most of these people want is to be able to have some semblance of the normal free life that most people here have. They are willing to toil 15 hours a day, seven days a week at manual labor and live 10 men in a house with few women to do so. Are some of them going to break the law- of course.

Like Elvis said "before you accuse, criticize and abuse, walk a mile in my shoes".

So for once, I say a church is doing something right.
If I make my way past your home security system, would you let me live in your house? Should I take it personally if you refused?

[LilShieste]

Yes, they are protected. So should illegals. But because of our stupid immigration laws, they are not. I thought you were on the OP's side in this debate? This seems to be a better argument for the opposition.
Why are our immigration laws stupid because they don't protect the wages of illegal immigrants? I'm really curious as to why the government should protect the wages of someone who shouldn't be here.

If they could come here legally, don't you think they would do that?
I would hope so. What's stopping them, though?

And it really pisses me off to hear an asshole sellout like Governor Ah-nold talk about how aliens should enter the country legally, like he did. Asshole, you were allowed in beacause of your status as a bodybuilder, IIRC. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be an athlete or entertainer. Why is it that the country allows famous people here so easily, but if you're a regular Joe, wait a decade, we're working on it.
Would you be just as pissed off if you hear an immigrant from Mexico saying the same thing?

There are immigrants who are here legally, who were just as bad off - if not worse off - than immigrants who are here illegally.

LilShieste, so you're saying an illegal who makes ten cents an hour back home, but two dollars an hour here or whatever, should wait back home earning the ten cents until they can come legally and make the legal minimum wage?
That's exactly what I'm saying.


LilShieste

P.S. - I've got to drop out of this conversation for now... lunch break is over.

[Wee Bairn]

LilShieste, you make it sound like, for an average non-famous foreigner with no ties to the US or anyone here, that coming in legally vs. illegally is as easy as 'stop at border, fill out a quick form, you're legal'- yeah, who wouldn't, if that were the case?. But the difference in sneaking up the El Paso and legal entry is maybe seven years, if you're lucky, and if you don't have connections or ties, it may not happen, ever. Look at your hungry, shoeless kids and explain to them that they can't have a better life because of some stupid law.

And if you really say you would abide by the law in their shoes, maybe you would, but wouldn't it be awfully tempting? If you're starving and you see a pie on a windowsill, for most people, at some point your hunger is going to supersede your ethics. Does that make them bad people or criminals?

Do you even know the entry process for poor illegals with no ties or sports skills?

[pizzabrat]

The danger in pricing unskilled labor out of the domestic market while allowing the country to flood with more unskilled laborers is so freaking obvious... There's only so much need for gardeners and field laborers - after all of these illegal immigrants gain amnesty and no longer have any incentive for keeping hush about being paid below minimum wage, therefore making employers being less willing to chance illegal underpayment, what do you think will happen (nothing, because you're not thinking, apparently)?

[cowgirl]

No, that's not what I'm saying. We offer political asylum in those cases, and there are agencies who work to make that immigration legal. Someone running from massacre in Darfur, where we know "death squads" still exist should be fast-tracked, should they wish to become an american citizen.

Someone slipping over the border from Michoacan to work with his friends or family isn't being persecuted. He has a life, he wants a better one, which no one in their right mind can blame him for, and I have no problem with, as long as it is done legallyI have no reason whatsoever to trust the US or Canadian authorities to reliably tell the difference between those two cases.

It is an undeniable fact that people are denied refugee status and deported back into situations in which their life is in immediate danger. The frequency of this can be debated, but not the fact that it does happen. Neither I, nor you, nor your system of political asylum, can effectively determine whose life will be in danger if they are deported.

As long as this remains a fact, I for one fervently hope that sanctuary is available for such people.

[Wee Bairn]

If I make my way past your home security system, would you let me live in your house? Should I take it personally if you refused?

Have you ever been poor? I don't mean US poor, I mean third world poor.
Have you ever gone to Mexico City and seen a shoeless five year old girl in a dirty dress, who should be in school, selling chiclets for a nickle to help her family earn money? Well, if that girl broke into your security system, what would be your reaction? Call the cops, put this little bitch in jail!

Granted the US can't be expected to save every poor person in the world.
But the idea that immigrants are going to come in and ruin the country is laughable, same as it was in the early 1900's. And last time I checked, the country isn't "full". And if those you allow in are working and contributing, isn't that a good thing? Wouldn't the country prosper? And even if not, I'd rather see a country go in debt helping others, than war spending, any day.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying open the borders and have a million people lined up at Nogales by weeks end. My policy would be to let those here stay, keep up the appearances of returning illegals found sneaking in, but in reality, allowing it. Its the policy that's pretty much been in place for years, and its not causing problems.

[cowgirl]

Do you even know the entry process for poor illegals with no ties or sports skills?If not, please see this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=403804).

[Wee Bairn]

The danger in pricing unskilled labor out of the domestic market while allowing the country to flood with more unskilled laborers is so freaking obvious... There's only so much need for gardeners and field laborers - after all of these illegal immigrants gain amnesty and no longer have any incentive for keeping hush about being paid below minimum wage, therefore making employers being less willing to chance illegal underpayment, what do you think will happen (nothing, because you're not thinking, apparently)?

Do tell.

And surely your not implying the only thing an illegal has the capacity to do is landscape and wash dishes? Who does the skilled labor in Mexico City?

[Miller]

Why are our immigration laws stupid because they don't protect the wages of illegal immigrants? I'm really curious as to why the government should protect the wages of someone who shouldn't be here.

Because if the illegal immigrant reports that they're being exploited, they get thrown out of the country. If the penalty for illegal immigration was less severe, they would not be recalcitrant about reporting these abuses.

I would hope so. What's stopping them, though?

The law. You know, the one we've spent the last two pages debating?

Honestly, do you think people are dragging their families for miles through dangerous desert, living on the fringes of society, under constant fear of arrest and deportment, because they simply can't be bothered to get a green card? People come here illegally because they have no other way into the country. If they had other options, they would leap at them.

Would you be just as pissed off if you hear an immigrant from Mexico saying the same thing?

There are immigrants who are here legally, who were just as bad off - if not worse off - than immigrants who are here illegally.

I think you've entirely missed the point of the argument.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

There's compassion for you. If you're going to argue that people should starve rather than break our immigration laws, why on Earth should they respect those laws? Why should they respect those that support these laws? I sure as hell wouldn't.

On second thought, make that "don't."

[pizzabrat]

Have you ever been poor? I don't mean US poor, I mean third world poor.
Have you ever gone to Mexico City and seen a shoeless five year old girl in a dirty dress, who should be in school, selling chiclets for a nickle to help her family earn money? Well, if that girl broke into your security system, what would be your reaction? Call the cops, put this little bitch in jail!You'd do differently (ignoring the slur)?
Granted the US can't be expected to save every poor person in the world.
But the idea that immigrants are going to come in and ruin the country is laughable, same as it was in the early 1900's.Not when the industrial revolution is going in the exact opposite direction that it was in the early 1900's.
And last time I checked, the country isn't "full". And if those you allow in are working and contributing, isn't that a good thing?Yes, and I'd like it to be those we allow, not those who allow themselves. Wouldn't the country prosper? And even if not, I'd rather see a country go in debt helping others, than war spending, any day.Oh my God, I wouldn't! We're not a charity, we're a nation with our own problems.

[Wee Bairn]

If I came home and a very poor young illegal girl was in my kitchen eating Frosted Flakes like she hadn't eaten in a week, my first reaction would be that it would break my fucking heart, and I would probably start bawling like an infant. Police would not enter my mind at any point. But hey, I have empathy for those who are less fortunate than me. And if it was an inconvience and a bit of a cost to me to go out and buy more cereal, hey, I'll manage. And, anyway, I'm sure you see the difference between breaking into a person's house and an illegal alien who comes here and acquires his own personal lodgings.

[GIGObuster]

Yeah, but so are the idiotic comparisons of illegal alients to murders. Yes, we need to control our borders. But anyone who compares illegal immigrants to murderers is an asshole.

My point was that breaking the law can be moral or immoral. In most cases it's better to obey the law even if you disagree with the law, and try to change the law. In other cases, obeying the law is immoral.

As for the contention that these churches need to work to change US immigration law rather than shelter illegal immigrants, well, perhaps you've noticed those marches? You don't think churches that shelter illegal immigrants also work to liberalize US immigraiton policy?

I'm not in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, but pretending that churches that shelter illegal immigrants are the equivalent of churches sheltering murderers and terrorists marks you as an asshole. A bigot. A fucking dork. As I said, the cops are legally free to simply get a warrant, go on church grounds, and arrest everyone there and deport those who are here illegally. Why won't they do that? Because they're afraid if they do that they'd look like assholes, and they don't wanna look like assholes.
Well said, and I have to say sure checks are needed, but it always amazes me that people like buttonjockey308 ignore on purpose that laws were changed before to deal with this issue, even I agree that better control is needed at the border, but OTOH not giving any chance to the ones already here because of the former lack of control remains an inhuman position. Many former illegals that got the chance of legalizing their status then are now good American citizens.

- Ed.

Salvadoran-American.

Former illegal too, became a legal resident thanks to NACARA and amnesty laws and then a citizen in the 90's. So I guess I will be always like a murderer to the OP.

[Vinyl Turnip]

There's compassion for you. If you're going to argue that people should starve rather than break our immigration laws, why on Earth should they respect those laws?

Appeal to emotion aside, what percentage of people who come here illegally do you think are actually starving? I'll wager it's smaller than you think.

This is an issue I have a lot of conflicted feelings on, personally. I'm not a heartless monster and I'm not a xenophobe. If my own wife hadn't broken the law years ago by overstaying her tourist visa we'd never have gone out, married, and had eleven amazing years together. I've met a lot of other immigrants through her, a large percentage of whom are here illegally, and by and large they are really nice people who work hard and don't cause trouble. The INS (or whatever the current acronym) has since repeatedly denied visas for her sister and niece who would like to come visit us, which is very frustrating.

I don't know many Mexicans, but the Brazilians I've met who come here are not starving. The economy is not great there and the standard of living is much simpler overall, but they have homes and careers and families, and many of them are professionals (doctors and lawyers who come here to clean toilets and deliver pizzas). They come here because of an impression (somewhat true, somewhat exaggerated) that the U.S. is a cash cow to be milked, and an expedient to getting the material wants they can't afford back home. They make as much money as possible, send a lot of it home, and either stay as long as possible or return, hoping they'll be able to get back in again in the future and do it again.

Some of those who are unable to obtain a visa attempt to enter via the Mexican border, which is extremely dangerous. (And I really believe that the rise in undocumented immigration is only making it harder for those who want to gain entry legally— unable to do much about the border crossers, the U.S. simply tightens the valve and refuses nonimmigrant visas to legal applicants.) I hope it is not too hypocritical of me to say that while running across the border and overstaying a visa are both breaking the law, in the latter case at least there is valid documentation about who's entering, fingerprints, etc. While the "terrorism" specter may be overstated by those with a particular agenda, the fact is that it's a huge security risk to have people entering the country with no documentation or identifying information whatsoever.

I get frustrated by the insinuation by many pro-immigrant liberals that if you support anything short of full amnesty for illegals and a porous border, or if you make any discussion of the potential negative social and economic consequences of mass, unchecked immigration on this country, you are a bigot. I consider it the ideological counterpart to the conservative "if you object to our policies, you're supporting the terrorists." It's just not that simple.

[Miller]

Appeal to emotion aside, what percentage of people who come here illegally do you think are actually starving? I'll wager it's smaller than you think.

Oh, I'm not claiming that all illegal immigrants, or even most, are starving. There are, after all, scads of illegal Canadian immigrants that no one ever complains about, and it's not exactly like they came here fleeing the gulags of Sasketchawan. But there are a lot of people who come here illegally because back home, they can barely manage a subsitence-level existence, and those were precisely the immigrants LilShieste said should just sit at home and starve until we decide to get off our asses and reform our immigration system. I do differentiate between those who come here because the alternative is total destitution, and those who come here because the alternative is having to drive a used SUV. Unfortunetly, our immigration system does not distinguish between these two types of immigrants, and I find unconscionable to throw out those in the first group, just to get at those in the second group.

[buttonjockey308]

Well said, and I have to say sure checks are needed, but it always amazes me that people like buttonjockey308 ignore on purpose that laws were changed before to deal with this issue, even I agree that better control is needed at the border, but OTOH not giving any chance to the ones already here because of the former lack of control remains an inhuman position. Many former illegals that got the chance of legalizing their status then are now good American citizens.

- Ed.

Salvadoran-American.

Former illegal too, became a legal resident thanks to NACARA and amnesty laws and then a citizen in the 90's. So I guess I will be always like a murderer to the OP.

Listen, pal, I know about the IRCA, how it helped and how it hurt. My position is, was and likely always will be in this debate that the church is an accessory to a crime, and just like any accessory to any crime, should be held accountable. If you ARE illegally in this country, you KNOW and must ACCEPT the risk that you and your family will be detained and deported. That said, let me draw MY distinct line about crime and criminals, lest you be any further deluded;

There are essentially 4 kinds of crime: (this is WAY shorthand, but I'm tired)

Part I Violent crimes (murder, robbery, forceable rape)
Part I Property Crimes (burglary, larceny auto theft)
Part II crimes (under which violations of immigration law usually fall)
Part III (summary, civil, local ordinances, aggravators etc)

There is a correlation between each of these parts, as they are all violations of the law to whatever extent, and those that would commit said violations are considered to be criminals, subject to criminal prosecution (or in part III civil action as well).

To remedy the violation of any one of the parts there is a "punishment" or, more recently, a "corrective plan" (I consider it more of an incentive really, but that's neither here nor there) that allows the violator the ability to pay, with time or money, his or her debt to society, who created and hence enforce the laws.

That "corrective plan" is in equal severity (in most cases) to the severity of the violation (pot possession not withstanding).

If you murder someone just because it was tuesday, you, in my opinion, forfeit your right to continue to live. The law sees it this way too, at least in some places.

If you speed, you're given a ticket which imposes a fine and is directed at "punishing" (or again with the incentives) you for breaking the law you KNEW about before you did it.

See, a direct link between crime and punishment. It is what I, (perhaps poorly explained, or perhaps you didn't bother to read the entire thread, either way) believe is proper, it is how the law (basically) works, and despite what you or I think of the way the law IS, it is that way regardless, and will be that way until someone else comes up with something better.

I do NOT think illegals are the same TYPE of criminals as murderers and arsonists, but they are, as you were, a criminal, and the law, as it is written should apply to every man, woman and child that sets their foot on the soil here.

As for giving those a chance who are already here? Cool, I'm for it, but it means sacrifice, not just "filling out an application". The rules are tough, and the wait and expense can be grueling, but once you're here, the direction is yours which way to go.

This, as you can likely attest, is one of, if not THE greatest country on earth, if you want to be a citizen here, it requires you to sacrifice. My father and his father sacrificed a part of themselves that I would not have to (though I have regardless). I am lucky to be born and bred an American, I understand that, in fact, I embrace it, most in the world are not as lucky as I am.

I want others to be lucky, I want the choice of prosperity to be made available to as many people as we can afford with our resources to sustain, but each and every one of them needs to do it correctly, within the boundaries of our regulations. Or they risk enforcement action. Period.

[GIGObuster]

Listen, pal,

Buster, or amigo would fit.

I know about the IRCA, how it helped and how it hurt. My position is, was and likely always will be in this debate that the church is an accessory to a crime, and just like any accessory to any crime, should be held accountable.
Do it and you will see how we vote in the future.

If you ARE illegally in this country, you KNOW and must ACCEPT the risk that you and your family will be detained and deported. That said, let me draw MY distinct line about crime and criminals, lest you be any further deluded;
I knew the risks, and the deluded is you.

There are essentially 4 kinds of crime: (this is WAY shorthand, but I'm tired)

Part I Violent crimes (murder, robbery, forceable rape)
Part I Property Crimes (burglary, larceny auto theft)
Part II crimes (under which violations of immigration law usually fall)
Part III (summary, civil, local ordinances, aggravators etc)

There is a correlation between each of these parts, as they are all violations of the law to whatever extent, and those that would commit said violations are considered to be criminals, subject to criminal prosecution (or in part III civil action as well).

To remedy the violation of any one of the parts there is a "punishment" or, more recently, a "corrective plan" (I consider it more of an incentive really, but that's neither here nor there) that allows the violator the ability to pay, with time or money, his or her debt to society, who created and hence enforce the laws.

That "corrective plan" is in equal severity (in most cases) to the severity of the violation (pot possession not withstanding).

If you murder someone just because it was tuesday, you, in my opinion, forfeit your right to continue to live. The law sees it this way too, at least in some places.

If you speed, you're given a ticket which imposes a fine and is directed at "punishing" (or again with the incentives) you for breaking the law you KNEW about before you did it.

See, a direct link between crime and punishment. It is what I, (perhaps poorly explained, or perhaps you didn't bother to read the entire thread, either way) believe is proper, it is how the law (basically) works, and despite what you or I think of the way the law IS, it is that way regardless, and will be that way until someone else comes up with something better.
And you did not bother to see that I mostly agree with enforcement, now tell why I should not asume that you are not a dunderhead?

I do NOT think illegals are the same TYPE of criminals as murderers and arsonists, but they are, as you were, a criminal, and the law, as it is written should apply to every man, woman and child that sets their foot on the soil here. The law was changed to give this "criminal" a chance, that is a fact, deal with it, because future laws will help the ones that are already here and it is also a fact that I was the one that got amnesty, today even the most moderate plans right now will require illegals to pay a fine for the crime. That is fair IMO.

As for giving those a chance who are already here? Cool, I'm for it, but it means sacrifice, not just "filling out an application". The rules are tough, and the wait and expense can be grueling, but once you're here, the direction is yours which way to go.
Ronald Reagan and Bush senior did the choice for me by ignoring the death squads of El Salvador.

This, as you can likely attest, is one of, if not THE greatest country on earth, if you want to be a citizen here, it requires you to sacrifice. My father and his father sacrificed a part of themselves that I would not have to (though I have regardless). I am lucky to be born and bred an American, I understand that, in fact, I embrace it, most in the world are not as lucky as I am.
I knew that already, and I do want it to be even better, by the way that sacrifice involved (while I was an illegal) do electronic testing of components (liquid nitrogen, radiation and corrosive tests, fun!) that eventually did go into Tomahawk missiles that kicked Saddam's butt, saving the lifes of many American soldiers and pilots by them not needing to risk being in harm's way.

I want others to be lucky, I want the choice of prosperity to be made available to as many people as we can afford with our resources to sustain, but each and every one of them needs to do it correctly, within the boundaries of our regulations. Or they risk enforcement action. Period.
Or make some new human laws similar to what was done before, Period.

[GIGObuster]

And you did not bother to see that I mostly agree with enforcement, now tell why I should not asume that you are not a dunderhead?
There, as usual, I'm a dunderhead in English grammar. :) But my excuse is that English is my second language, what is yours on purposely missing my position in this matter?

[Wee Bairn]

Surely those against illegals would agree that some exception should be for citizens of countries like Iraq, where America is directly causing many to be homeless, parentless, etc?

[Liberal]

How is this a commission of aggression on the equal rights of the illegal immigrants? Our laws allow immigrants to come to our country legally. We're giving them the opportunity to do so. They choose not to, for whatever reason.I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about ethics. Rights are a matter of ethics. The purpose of law is supposed to be to secure rights.

Suppose there were a law that said people couldn't eat ice-cream. Then we could have a debate about "illegal ice-cream eaters". The term "illegal" is ridiculous, thrown in for no reason other than the fact that there is a frivolous law. They're just plain old ice-cream-eaters, and the law is unethical.

With immigrants, same same. There should be no such thing as a "national border". It doesn't belong to anyone but government. What should happen is that the land owners who live adjacent to Mexico should be allowed to decide for themselves who can and who cannot come across their property. And the US government should do everything in its power to assure that their wishes are carried out. That's what rights are all about: the authority to determine what you will do with what you own, meaning everything from your land to your trinkets to your body and mind. Laws should secure rights, and nothing more.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]

To remedy the violation of any one of the parts there is a "punishment" or, more recently, a "corrective plan" (I consider it more of an incentive really, but that's neither here nor there) that allows the violator the ability to pay, with time or money, his or her debt to society, who created and hence enforce the laws.


See, a direct link between crime and punishment. It is what I, (perhaps poorly explained, or perhaps you didn't bother to read the entire thread, either way) believe is proper, it is how the law (basically) works, and despite what you or I think of the way the law IS, it is that way regardless, and will be that way until someone else comes up with something better.


YOU are missing the point.

The point is whether or not the government has the power to punish.
Stipulated: it does.

The point is not whether the government is free to determine the proportionality of the punishment to the crime.
Stipulated: it does.

Our disagreement is to the proprtionality of the response to the offense.

The question is: In the face of a disproportionate (albeit legal) punishment to a crime NOT committed out of any intent to do harm, is it ethical to attempt to thwart the application of said punishment by extralegal means chosen specifically for their utility in thwarting that application and drawing national attention to the fact that the punishment far outweighs the crime?

Resolved: YES it is.


This, as you can likely attest, is one of, if not THE greatest country on earth, if you want to be a citizen here, it requires you to sacrifice. My father and his father sacrificed a part of themselves that I would not have to (though I have regardless). I am lucky to be born and bred an American, I understand that, in fact, I embrace it, most in the world are not as lucky as I am.

One of the reasons why I wave the flag so proudly is because here our law is (or is at least intended to be) based on the preservation of liberty. If the law disproportionately damages one family or one man in the name of reducing the danger created by nine other men, then the law is flawed and must be corrected.

I submit to you that we are in such a correction period now.

I further submit that not all correction happens via due process of law, nor has it traditionally, nor should it.

I further submit to you that your ascribing knowledge of the law to illegal immigrants is disingenuous and creates false ground on which to stand.

To wit, administrative law in our nation has provisions whereby standard hearings can be suspended if the petitioner in question believes (and can prove) that the interests of fairness would not be served by initial administration hearings. How many illegal immigrants (not even as a whole, but who might qualify for it) do you think are aware of this?

[henrijohns]

The key is the employers. The saying that immigrants only come to work, why else, and they takes jobs citizens won't completely ignores the fact that those employers pay far below the going rate, usually ignore taxes for illegals, and often take bribes, operate dangerous facilities, or run sweatshops, knowing illegals won't report them.

[magellan01]

Miller,

Do you believe that the US (or any country) has the right to set its own immigration policy—specifically, limiting the number of immigrants they will allow in each year? If so, what should the government do with those who decide to sneak in? If those that sneak in (and are caught) just get their hand slapped and are allowed to stay in the country illegally, aren't you letting these people subvert the government and the will of the people that elected its leaders?

[Clothahump]

Based on this (http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2007/05/09/658536.html) story here. Seems churches nation wide are going to be hiding criminals (illegal immigrants) until the rest of us figure out that we should just forgive people for their crimes, and just allow them to become citizens.

Now, we will discount the fact that the law of sanctuary is one dating back to medieval England, and not applicable to modern society despite the "movement" by American Churches...



The fact here is, illegal immigrants are criminals. Like thieves, or those that commit assaults, or any other crime.

Absolutely correct. And if churches are hiding them, they are accomplices in breaking the law and the priest/rabbi/minister/shaman/feathershaker/whoever that is in charge should be arrested as well.

[Liberal]

Jesus. Whatever happened to the liberal appreciation for civil disobedience?

[Clothahump]

Jesus. Whatever happened to the liberal appreciation for civil disobedience?

What civil disobediance? When did helping someone commit a felony become civil disobediance?

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html

[Liberal]

What civil disobediance? When did helping someone commit a felony become civil disobediance?When a politically expedient Congress enacted an unethical law that restrains people from exercising rights over their property. Hell, if they made picking your nose felonious, then nose picking would be a felony.

[buttonjockey308]

YOU are missing the point.

The point is whether or not the government has the power to punish.
Stipulated: it does.

The point is not whether the government is free to determine the proportionality of the punishment to the crime.
Stipulated: it does.

Our disagreement is to the proprtionality of the response to the offense.

The question is: In the face of a disproportionate (albeit legal) punishment to a crime NOT committed out of any intent to do harm, is it ethical to attempt to thwart the application of said punishment by extralegal means chosen specifically for their utility in thwarting that application and drawing national attention to the fact that the punishment far outweighs the crime?

Resolved: YES it is.

A disproportionate punishment to illegal immigration would be public flaggelation, life in prisonment, or the death penalty. Deportation is a venerated practice, and one that those who break the rules know is a possibility. Don't cry to me when it happens. Sure, it sucks, and perhaps there needs to be another way, but if you break it, you bought it. IMO though, the punishment does NOT outweigh the crime. The punishment is in direct correlation with the crime: If someone decides to move into your house without your permission, you have the right to move them right the helll back out. It's just that, on a grand scale. Further, how can you say that everyone that's coming here illegally is doing so without the intent to harm? Hm?

Resolved: You CAN'T

One of the reasons why I wave the flag so proudly is because here our law is (or is at least intended to be) based on the preservation of liberty. If the law disproportionately damages one family or one man in the name of reducing the danger created by nine other men, then the law is flawed and must be corrected.

Yes, and as much as the spectre of 9/11 is a cause to roll-eyes for the pro-illegal immigrant crowd that liberty now has a higher price than it did on 9/10. Security is not as important as liberty, and liberty is not as important as security. Mr. Jefferson never, I assume, envisioned the kind of world in which we now live. It's idyllic to believe that we could live safely in a world, hell, in a country where the exchange of liberty for security would not take place, but it's not realistic.

I submit to you that we are in such a correction period now.

I further submit that not all correction happens via due process of law, nor has it traditionally, nor should it.

I further submit to you that your ascribing knowledge of the law to illegal immigrants is disingenuous and creates false ground on which to stand.

To wit, administrative law in our nation has provisions whereby standard hearings can be suspended if the petitioner in question believes (and can prove) that the interests of fairness would not be served by initial administration hearings. How many illegal immigrants (not even as a whole, but who might qualify for it) do you think are aware of this?

Perhaps.

True.

Don't buy it. Following the law isn't disengenuous.

Probably none, and that's not a concern of mine. I'm already a citizen. If I were to, say, want to become a Dutch citizen, I would know before I became one HOW to become one, and go about the process. BUT, you'll say, what about the poor, uneducated illegal? How ever will he be able to understand these rules and laws.
My answer? Don't care. The last thing we need is someone who can't figure a way to understand the process. Now, I'm NOT saying they should understand our complicated legal system, but what I AM saying is that if you're not even smart or resourceful enough to find a way to deal with the system, I'm not sure we want you here in the first place

[buttonjockey308]

Jesus. Whatever happened to the liberal appreciation for civil disobedience?

I appreciate civil disobedience as much as the next guy, but the cause here ain't a grand one. This isn't civil rights, or woman's suffrage, hell, this isn't even gay marriage, this is a potential threat to the American way of life (beyond security) and I will again point to This Immigration and Gumballs (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069&q=immigration+and+gumballs&hl=en) video, (endorsed no less, by the father of Earth Day) as proof.

[Miller]

I appreciate civil disobedience as much as the next guy, but the cause here ain't a grand one. This isn't civil rights, or woman's suffrage, hell, this isn't even gay marriage, this is a potential threat to the American way of life (beyond security) and I will again point to This Immigration and Gumballs (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069&q=immigration+and+gumballs&hl=en) video, (endorsed no less, by the father of Earth Day) as proof.

"A threat to the American way of life?" Hmm. When was the last time I heard that argument being used as a reason to oppose a particular political issue?

Oh, that's right. It was during the gay marriage debate.

And before that, it was civil rights.

And before that, it was women's sufferage.

Now, I'm not saying that you're morally equivalent with those people, but pretty much every single progressive change in this country has been decried as, "a threat to the American way of life." And to my knowledge, every single time they were wrong. But, I'm sure, this time is the exception.

[Miller]

Miller,

Do you believe that the US (or any country) has the right to set its own immigration policy—specifically, limiting the number of immigrants they will allow in each year?

How do you mean, "Right?" They certainly have that ability. North Korea has the "right" to clamp it's borders down tighter than a nun's pussy, and to hell with the human cost of such a policy. That doesn't mean they are "right" to do so.

If so, what should the government do with those who decide to sneak in?

If they've committed no other serious crime, a modest fine to be waived upon completion of the appropriate legal measures necessary to ensure legal residence. Basically, the equivalent of a fix-it ticket for driving with a busted tail light, which is the approptiate level of severity for a "crime" of this magnitude.

If those that sneak in (and are caught) just get their hand slapped and are allowed to stay in the country illegally, aren't you letting these people subvert the government and the will of the people that elected its leaders?

Sure, much the same way that cops who look the other way when someone's five miles over the speed limit are "subverting the government and the will of the people that elected its leaders." Just speaking personally, my anus simply isn't tight enough to get worked up over either legal violation. Of course, you may vary your mileage freely, if you so desire.

[buttonjockey308]

"A threat to the American way of life?" Hmm. When was the last time I heard that argument being used as a reason to oppose a particular political issue?

Oh, that's right. It was during the gay marriage debate.

And before that, it was civil rights.

And before that, it was women's sufferage.

Now, I'm not saying that you're morally equivalent with those people, but pretty much every single progressive change in this country has been decried as, "a threat to the American way of life." And to my knowledge, every single time they were wrong. But, I'm sure, this time is the exception.

OK, perhaps a poor choice of words, but no less true, if that video is to be believed (using US census data and all).

So instead, I'll say this: Unchecked and excess immigration is a threat to our environment, our infrastructure, our economy, our political process, and our security. Now, at least to me, all of those things combine to create what is, "The American Way of Life (tm)."

People flooding over our borders at rates beyond what we can reasonably accomodate, and prepare to accomodate in the future will eventually destroy what we have now, and turn it into something wholly unrecognizable, which is not necessarily a bad thing, because sometimes change is good, but this kind of change will not be good.

To Wit:

The average American generates 4.9 pounds of garbage every day. Round that up to 5 lbs for ease of cypherin'. Multiply that by 300,000,000 and you get 1,500,000,000 pounds of trash. Every. Single. Day. Of course the real numbers aren't an average, and this does not account for recycling, but even if those numbers were halved, that's a LOT of garbage, and if we take in a million people a year, that's an additional 5 million pounds a day. We're gonna run out of places to put it all. It'll ruin OUR environment, it'll cloud OUR skies and choke OUR resources.

Negating security, this is an issue that we can't afford NOT to take control of.