[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Question; are you attempting to address the particular point of birthright by blood or are you summing up Ogre’s opinion on magellan’s list and disregarding the idea that he/she might consider other things apart from the Fourteenth Amendment heartless and cruel (or the entirety of magellan’s position)?
I’m trying to clarify Ogre’s - and anyone else’s - position.
Ogre may well say: “There’s nothing inherently cruel about wishing to change our method of granting citizenship, and nothing inherently cruel about countries that use jus sanguinis. It is only other parts of magellan’s approach that I find cruel.”
Or, in contrast, he might say, “It’s wrong for this or any country to deny citizenship to any person born in its borders; jus soli citizenship should be considered a natural right all over the world.”
I’m trying to explore which of these general positions he, and others in this thread, hold.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry for the cynicism upthread then. I’m not arguing jus soli or jus sanguinis. I don’t know enough about the subtleties of these doctrines to argue intelligently about them, other than to note that few countries use either pure jus soli or jus sanguinis. Many use a mixture of the two, thereby creating a range of legal possibilities.
All I am saying is that by sealing our border with Mexico, we are 1) depriving ourselves of a vast resource - people who are motivated to make a better life for themselves and who will substantially contribute to our economy, and 2) merely increasing the “energy of activation” for immigrants crossing the border, without removing the economic disparity. In other words, no measures will be enough to remove the motivation for these people to seek a better life. They will still come over, and be forced to go further underground once they’re here.
[QUOTE=World Eater]
Good, find more clever ways to bust them.
/never will happen, but one can hope
[/QUOTE]
The trouble is that law enforcement of this nature is reactive by nature, thus , they are always responding to an ever-growing problem, and never addressing the root cause (the economic disparity.) Thus, the problem can never be solved.
[QUOTE=World Eater]
We’re also a nation of laws. I don’t see why someone who shouldn’t be here should have a license, vote, etc.
There are plenty of people that are waiting on that line to get in. What irks me most is that illegal immigrants bypass that line. I’m all for helping my fellow man, and giving people a shot at a better life, but the rules must be followed.
[/QUOTE]
What **Ogre ** said.
I have to add that of course, that in the middle of the civil war in El Salvador my family was threatened, it just so happened that while the rest of my family managed to get in the USA with papers that my parents decided I could not wait for them, speaking of a nation of laws, amnesty was granted then (a legal item that has precedent and yet many in these discussions act like if that is illegal) and later I became an American Citizen. What the current proposed laws that seek to legalize the status of many current illegals is not amnesty, it will actually make them pay a fine for them coming in illegally.
Regarding the OP, nice bunch of straw there, IIRC federal laws were even strengthened to deport illegals that are involved in violent crime. It is silly to assume people in favor of legalization are in favor of incompetent local law enforcement that fail to deport illegals that should lose the chance of ever legalizing their stay.
The circumstances for this study aren’t quite the same as for the later study of criminal aliens, so I don’t think you can look at the raw numbers and draw conclusions without adding some caveats. However, there are some similarities.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sorry for the cynicism upthread then. I’m not arguing jus soli or jus sanguinis. I don’t know enough about the subtleties of these doctrines to argue intelligently about them, other than to note that few countries use either pure jus soli or jus sanguinis. Many use a mixture of the two, thereby creating a range of legal possibilities.
All I am saying is that by sealing our border with Mexico, we are 1) depriving ourselves of a vast resource - people who are motivated to make a better life for themselves and who will substantially contribute to our economy, and 2) merely increasing the “energy of activation” for immigrants crossing the border, without removing the economic disparity. In other words, no measures will be enough to remove the motivation for these people to seek a better life. They will still come over, and be forced to go further underground once they’re here.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, no argument there – it would be, IMHO, tremendously foolish to seal our borders. But I don’t believe there is a natural right to citizenship simply by being born within a nation’s borders. We choose now to offer citizenship in that way, but we offend no moral standards if we change that. Many countries offer citizenship primarily by blood rather than birth.
Disclosure of possible bias: my father was a legal immigrant from El Salvador.
Oh, no argument there – it would be, IMHO, tremendously foolish to seal our borders. But I don’t believe there is a natural right to citizenship simply by being born within a nation’s borders. We choose now to offer citizenship in that way, but we offend no moral standards if we change that. Many countries offer citizenship primarily by blood rather than birth.
[/QUOTE]
Technically, we wouldn’t offend your moral standards by changing the law. It would absolutely offend mine if we adopted a policy of deporting people from this country, not because they have violated any law, but because their parents violated a law. Punishing someone for breaking a law before they were even born (or possibly, before they were even conceived) does not strike me as a wise, moral, or just policy in any sense of those words.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Out of interest, magellan (I don’t want to get into the whole immigration debate, since i’ll be the first to admit I know little one way or the other) what does the last item on your list do to help curb illegal immigration? It seems like just a cosmetic change.
[/QUOTE]
As more immigrants come her (legally), it helps to have a culture that they can assimilate into. A culture that can be seen by newcomers as the norm. A stionary target they can then work themselves into.
Additionally, there is no reason that we should be spending money on voter information and DMV and other government materials. If you want to live here, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that you shold learn English. If I were to move to France, Germany, Mexico, Brazil, China, Thailand or Khazakstan, I’d expect to have to learn their language to funtion in their societies. If I needed help, I would look to aemrican enclaves, the American Consulate or private organizations.
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
Actually, the 14th Amendment does a bit more than that, but this isn’t the first time you’ve been talking out of your ass about things you don’t understand. Here’s the text:
[/QUOTE]
Should I have said “those aspects of the 14th Amendment…”? Okay. Since you’re the only who seemed to need this extra clarification, I give it specifically to you.
[QUOTE=Oakminster]
Fuckwit.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting signature line you used here. I’d recommend changing your user name to, as well, it to avoid confusion.
[QUOTE=Ogre]
Wait. One more thing.I think you completely misunderstand the nature of “the magnet.” The magnet is the vast economic disparity between Mexico and the US, and is completely insurmountable by the paltry means you suggest above.
[/QUOTE]
I think my meaning is just fine, nut you raise an important point that I forgot to include. As the disparity between the countries is the cause of much desire to come here, we should develop some program to encourage investment in Mexico. How we do that with the degree of corruption in the country is totally beyond me. But I would thiink there would be a way.
I find it ironic that many American companies go half way around the globe to find cheap labor. Mexico has cheap labor. While it’s not as low as parts of Asia, I would think that the fact that there so close would sweeten the deal for an American company. Reduced shipping costs, for example, and less transit time.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
You want apologist? OK, I’ll give you apologist. Of late, a very large number of Hispanics have become residents of my neighborhood (People’s Republic of Minnesota). They work their butts off. The mamas meet the school bus and walk their kids home, the kids are healthy, happy and scrubbed within an inch of their lives. Offered a crippled dialogue in lame Spanish, they are helpful and instructive, pleased as punch that you would make the effort. Many of them risked their very lives to be here, and any one of them is worth six pampered Americans, any day of the week.
That “apology” enough for yer ass?
[/QUOTE]
Hmm. I actually agree with the sentiment of your post (with the exception of kids beiong allowed to go to our schools). But it is beside the point. They are here illegally. People are waiting in line legally. Do we not owe it to them to ensure order and fairness in the process? What do you say to them?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
As more immigrants come her (legally), it helps to have a culture that they can assimilate into. A culture that can be seen by newcomers as the norm. A stionary target they can then work themselves into.
[/quote]
And having a national language would help with this goal… how, precisely?
I can think of one good reason: American citizens want their government to offer them those particular services in those particular languages. You’re not actually suggesting that we offer voting material in Spanish to help out illegal immigrants, are you?
Or are you advocating that anything less than total fluency in English should bar someone from citizenship?
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
What **Ogre ** said.What the current proposed laws that seek to legalize the status of many current illegals is not amnesty, it will actually make them pay a fine for them coming in illegally.
[/QUOTE]
And what of those that come in after the the current ones are granted citizenship? It seems that unless other actions are taken in conjunction, we’ll be right back where we started.
[QUOTE=Ogre]
In a perfect world, yes. In reality, what I suspect would happen is that companies would develop more clever ways to hide that they are employing illegals.
[/QUOTE]
Your probably right. The same way some companies work to circumvent tax laws, safety laws, and God knows what other laws. That’s no argument to abolish those laws or turn a blind eye. Is it?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
… (with the exception of kids beiong allowed to go to our schools)…
[/QUOTE]
Bit of a fanatic on that one. I hold education to be inherently beneficial to the state, the nation, the species and the planet. I want schools here, there, in Ulan Bator, in Beirut, and build one in Anarctica in case a child should be accidentally stranded there.
Fighting ignorance, and all that sort of thing.
Besides which, those schoolchildren who are native-born are citizens and are perfectly entitled to attend “our” schools. Because they are us.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, assuming these numbers hold up, at a rate of 429 arrests per 100, without those illegals here we would have had 1,124,409 fewer arrests in the U.S.
[/QUOTE]
OK, I will do youthe favor of accepting this statement for the sake of argument. I suppose ceteris paribus it would be better to say, "Yes, we would be better off with 1 million plus fewer arrests. I would argue that it is infact a rather small number given what illegal immigrants add to our society and your Draconian suggestions in net would make us worse off. Can I prove that? Not really. But I do find this idea that 1,124,409 more arrests is supposed to shock me into some sort of epiphany about how horrible it is to have illegal immigrants as kind of a joke.
[QUOTE=Ogre]
All I am saying is that by sealing our border with Mexico, we are 1) depriving ourselves of a vast resource - people who are motivated to make a better life for themselves and who will substantially contribute to our economy, and 2) merely increasing the “energy of activation” for immigrants crossing the border, without removing the economic disparity. In other words, no measures will be enough to remove the motivation for these people to seek a better life. They will still come over, and be forced to go further underground once they’re here.
[/QUOTE]
Regarding #1: If we truly need them, they could—post reforms—come here legally. If we need 1,000,000 to pick vegetables, let’s allow them to come here for that seasonal work legally. No?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I think my meaning is just fine, nut you raise an important point that I forgot to include. As the disparity between the countries is the cause of much desire to come here, we should develop some program to encourage investment in Mexico. How we do that with the degree of corruption in the country is totally beyond me. But I would thiink there would be a way.
I find it ironic that many American companies go half way around the globe to find cheap labor. Mexico has cheap labor. While it’s not as low as parts of Asia, I would think that the fact that there so close would sweeten the deal for an American company. Reduced shipping costs, for example, and less transit time.
[/QUOTE]
Talking out of your ass again. There are all kinds of foreign investment and foreign companies operating in México. The irony is they come here to take advantage of cheap labor therefore they pay shit wages which is the main reason many people go north. My daughter has a bachelors degree from a prestigious university and works for an American company. She makes less than 900usd a month while working 50+ hours a week.
Have you ever spent any time at all in México and have any personal insights or is all of your lack of knowledge about México solely learned from right wing bigoted publications?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Bit of a fanatic on that one. I hold education to be inherently beneficial to the state, the nation, the species and the planet. I want schools here, there, in Ulan Bator, in Beirut, and build one in Anarctica in case a child should be accidentally stranded there.
Fighting ignorance, and all that sort of thing.
Besides which, those schoolchildren who are native-born are citizens and are perfectly entitled to attend “our” schools. Because they are us.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it’s one of the issues I’m more torn on. But given that we can’t round all illegals up and send them back to their home countries. Removing incentives for them to come here seems perfectly logical. You are right about the children born here. Bit not all are. And the longer they stay here the more likley they will have children born here who will be citizens. And they in turn, will be able to bring more of their family over legally. It makes a mockery out of the 14th Amendment.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Regarding #1: If we truly need them, they could—post reforms—come here legally. If we need 1,000,000 to pick vegetables, let’s allow them to come here for that seasonal work legally. No?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not interested in limiting otherwise perfectly hard-working, possibly educated people to picking fruit.
I don’t know if everyone’s taken off from it at this point, but I cannot wrap my head around what the linked article and study is supposed to indicate for the OP. That most illegal aliens are criminals in other respects? That illegal aliens are more likely to repeat an offense than citizens? That all illegals should be deported because some will become criminals?
I figured that it was a foregone conclusion when you take from a sample of people who have been arrested, it would follow that a good number of them would have previous or future arrests.
This is even just assuming it has any real validity. If we have this:
and lots of “if this data is representative” without real indication that it actually is (not suprising with such a relatively microscopic sample), at what point do these become ‘facts?’