Are you saying that people in your country without permission are not breaking any law? Then what right does immigration have to collect them then?
And if they are in your country illegally then how is it fundamentally different than if they break into your house?
(Not that I want to break up yours and FinnAgain’s lovefest, but I thought I’d ask)
The facts, please address them.
And again[sup]2[/sup]
Of course as I didn’t attribute anything to you that you didn’t say (and it would be against board rules for me to do so, in any case) and I was rather clearly mocking the obfuscation whereby you call criminals “undocumented workers”, “Undocumented guests” just drives home how absurd it is. You can call criminals “undocumented and unappreciated sainted heroes”, it won’t make it any more accurate as it’s obvious that your argument is using word games to avoid having to apply a pejorative to Mexico in the same exact manner as you’re applying one to America.
“America is [pejorative]” is cool but “Mexico is [pejorative]” is just beyond the pale, to the point where you deny that criminals are criminals and try to claim that criminals have some sort of right to violate the law and trespass into a nation but it’s totally different if criminals try to violate the law and trespass into someone’s home.
You are wrong. Illegal immigration is a crime (hence the “illegal” part). That I even have to link to prove that violating the law is, in fact, against the law is weird.
It’s the same strange kind of argument you’re using when you claim that America has the largest amount of illegal drug use in the world. To say nothing of the basic flaw of comparing drug use in a nation the size of the United States against many smaller nations, you’ll find that the actual facts are that American drug use is, on a per capita basis, pretty much equivalent to quite a few other nations.
This is just another reason why “America is [pejorative]! And they are bad because they say Mexico is [different pejorative]!” is a hollow argument.
…* in Soviet Russia, immigration law violates you*!
Apparently you cannot tell the difference between unlawful entry and lack of legal status. Your own immigration laws contains both criminal and civil law. Being unlawfully (lack of legal status)in the USA is not a criminal offense. So please tell me how all of the undocumented workers in the US happen to be in violation of criminal law. Unless of course you consider violators of civil law criminals. That wouldn’t surprise me.
But if you really want to use the whole argument (erroneous as I have pointed out) that all undocumented workers are criminal which you then said made meant that something like 7% of Mexicans are criminals you failed to mention that the 46% of Americans that have used an illegal drug are also criminals. Throw in the rest of your felons and misdemeaner convicts and man, you are looking at over half of your citizens over the age of 12. You really have something to boast about there, don’t you agree? Oh and don’t forget your national heroes like Barry Bonds, McGuire and Alex Rodriguez that illegally obtained controlled substances. Throw in Rush Limbaugh while you are at it. And wasn’t John McCain’s wife abusing drugs she illegally obtained?
Your source for drug use is interesting. Because I found this information attributed to the same organization:
“The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimated that in 2003 worldwide retails sales were $322 billion. The UN estimated that 44% of that market was mostly in the United States. In other words, Americans, who account for 5 percent of the world’s population, account for roughly 44% of the world’s money spent on illegal drugs.”
I didn’t say they were not breaking a law. Lack of legal status is a civil law violation. A civil law violation is not a criminal offense.
I would say entering the US illegally is more like trespassing than breaking and entering. In fact it is considered a misdemeanor and not a felony which I imagine breaking into a home would be. So in the eyes of US Federal law it isn’t even considered the equal of felony trespass.
Ah, the ‘How many angels dance on a head of a pin’ ploy. Well played, Sir. Well played.
I agree with your comment about trespassing as being a more appropriate analogy, though.
Oh and Uzi, let me clarify a possible misunderstanding. I am Mexican and reside in Mexico. So it is not my country we are speaking of.
Please address the facts sooner or later, again:
Another hint, in addition to the fact that I already cited the federal law that illegal immigrants are violating (remember, illegal means it’s not legal), that law provides for their punishment under Title 18. What is Title 18?
Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Title 8 also goes on to describe the regulations that aliens are required to abide by and that they’re guilty of crimes if they violate those regulations.
Again, the fact that it’s illegal immigration punishable under the criminal code and by punishment up to two years in prison kinda points to you being, shall we say, somewhat wrong on the facts at hand. To say nothing of the fact that misdemeanors are crimes and despite your assertions, the US criminal code is not really the civil code :rolleyes: A mistake in the service of allowing you to ignore that by your same logic, you should be saying “The United States had an insatiable craving for drugs and Mexico has an insatiable craving for profiting off human misery and engaging in crime.”
But you won’t say the latter and avoiding it (as you should, you should just also avoid the exact same sort of statements about America). And when faced with the fact that if you endorse one then there is no logically valid reason to get upset at the other, you instead use a tu quoque fallacy to claim that, well, even more Americans are criminals! Your response to your logical foundation being ripped apart is, really, to try to get even more negative about America. This is just another reason why your stance of moral indignation isn’t compelling.
If the sauce is good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
Your claims have nothing to do with reality. Illegal immigrants are not “lacking in legal status”, they have legal status, they are aliens that have entered improperly. All the word games won’t change the fact that under US law they have a very clear status, and that status is someone who is in violation of US law. Yes, even your “undocumented buddies from below the border crashing on the Couch of America for a while, brah.”
You can massage language until it wags its tail and offers you its underbelly, but the facts still show you are simply wrong. You can use word games until the cows come home to make it look like people in violation of federal law are just the same as someone who just happened to lose their documents. If I lose my driver’s license I’m “undocumented”. If an illegal immigrant breaks US law and illegally enters the country, he’s a criminal.
As should be obvious, this argument is a post hoc rationalization on a great many levels. To begin with, the statement was not that 6% of Mexicans at any one time are criminals, but at least 6% of Mexicans are criminals involved in the violation of US laws. You can check (and answer, please) the point I’ve raised several times and you have ignored, namely, that by exactly the same logic which you use to support your claim that “America is [pejorative]”, “Mexico is [another pejorative]”. Further, the fact that 46% of Americans have at one time or another may have committed a criminal act is quite different from the fact of a certain percentage continually engaged in criminality. To say nothing of the fact that you are simply spitballing when you claim that the percent of Americans who ever used a drug is the percent who are in violation of US criminal laws. To say nothing of states where some things are decriminalized for personal possession/use, others are prescribed by doctors.
Instead of pretzeling your argument to draw these silly comparisons, just treat “America is [pejorative]!” the exact same way you are currently treating “Mexico is [pejorative]!”
With no cite. At all.
Of course, the figures that I actually cited don’t match up with your claim.
Your claim seems to come from this, also uncited, op-ed piece. Or perhaps this one (hard to tell as you didn’t actually cite anything or indicate where you found your quote).
What does the second cite say?
Hrm… North America, why, that sounds distinctly like it’s a different name than “America”, almost like there’s a whole other word in there that alters the meaning. Hrm… according to the UN’s World Drug Report, what nations are they talking about when they talk about “North America”?
The United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Oh…
Oh, so now Mexico is being classed as North American, and not “that carbuncle on America’s ass.”?
Well, that seems to be a bit of a step forward.
And even if you’re ignoring all the illegal immigrants (criminals under the US code for violating the law on how people are supposed to immigrate), being “undocumented” is, in and of itself, you guessed it, a crime.
You’ll fight tooth and nail, when at least 6% of Mexicans are constantly engaged in criminal activity in the US, against saying “Mexico has an insatiable hunger for committing crime.”
But when 8% of Americans have used any drug at all in the last month, whether or not they got them from Mexico and whether or not they just took a puff on a joint at a party or are fiending for drugs all the time, then “America has an insatiable hunger for drugs, and Mexico is powerless to do aught but obey!”
This is the point. You have no leg to stand on, at all, if you happily use that sort of rhetoric about America as a whole and then get upset to use the exact same rhetoric being used about Mexico as a whole. Why, it’s your ox being gored, what do those damn gringos think they’re doing, making statements like that about Mexico?!?!
Physician, yadda yadda.
For the last time: any further comments about the other “fabricating,” “whining,” “obfuscating,” “massaging” will result in warnings. Both of you need to tone it down.
This contributes nothing to the thread, so please don’t do it again.
Well I guess I should believe you then and not this US Attorney whose job requires knowledge of the law.
http://www.nj.com/morristown/index.ssf/2008/04/christie_clarifies_illegal_imm.html
You simply cannot accept the fact that not all undocumented workers entered the country illegally, a fact that makes them in violation of civil code therefore they are not criminals.
That’s rich. He was talking about illegal immigrants, who are in this country illegally. You’re trying to shift to “undocumented workers”, but he wasn’t talking about undocumented workers.
But I agree that while they have broken laws, they should not be called criminals. It would be technically correct to call them criminals, but the laws they have broken are not felonies (unless they stay in the country after they have been ordered by a court to leave, AFAIK.)
It’s unnecessarily provocative to insist they be called “criminals” anyway. Simply stating that they are in this country illegally is bad enough.
And give the "insatiable appetite " thing a rest. Where are the cartels getting all of those US dollars they are swimming in? Charitable contributions?
in·sa·tia·ble [in-sey-shuh-buhl, -shee-uh-] Show IPA
–adjective
not satiable; incapable of being satisfied or appeased: insatiable hunger for knowledge.
How about “voracious appetite” ? Either word describes it perfectly.
I don’t agree. He makes the claim that all Mexicans who are not legal residents are criminals. Many people happen to be in the US illegally are not in violation of any criminal code. And according to US law they are not. In the cite I offer a US Attorney backs that up quite clearly.
Please let me know what verbiage I am allowed to use to point out what his argument consists of. He has, for instance, just posted a cite to an attorney saying that illegal immigration is a crime in order to refute the notion that illegal immigration is a crime.
I would very much like to attack the flaws in his argument, which should be GD-legal. Can you please elaborate here or via PM?
Anyways, onwards:
Well, at least you may still be able to point that sort of stuff out. 
As should be obvious, when I was talking about illegal immigrants, I was talking about a person who has entered the country without official authorization. I’m not sure what the source of confusion is, as I cited the law they were breaking and pointed out that their specific status was not “undocumented” but that, under the law they are “aliens that have entered improperly”.
I would think it’s fairly clear that I was talking about people who had entered improperly.
I do in general agree with you, sorta. It’s accurate to call someone who is guilty of a crime a criminal even if we normally reserve such comments for hardcore felons, but that doesn’t have to be the case. It simply isn’t necessarily helpful to the discussion, but that’s my point. If 8+% of Americans having done anything from taking a hit off a joint in the last month to shooting heroin every day can be described as America, as a whole “having an insatiable hunger for mind altering substances”, then surely 6+% of Mexicans involved in deliberately violating the laws of the United States in order to gain benefits which our laws say they are not entitled to without authorization mean that “Mexico has an insatiable hunger for criminality.”
The point is that they’re both absurdities. It’d be fine to talk about the size and numbers involved in the American drug market, just as it’s fine to talk about the nature and numbers involved in Mexican illegal immigration. But we recognize that “Mexico is a nation of illegal immigrants!” is just as silly and incorrect as “America is a nation of insatiable drug fiends!”
The point I’ve been making is that CB’s argument is based on “America is [pejorative]! And they’re very bad because they believe that Mexico is [pejorative]!” He still hasn’t retracted that language and is going on to defend it but refuses to use the same sort of standards to talk about Mexicans.
Or we could look at what your cite says (to say nothing of the fact that you just quoted something saying you’re wrong, I’ll pull a few more quotes I guess).
:rolleyes: Moreover, as I already cited, simply overstaying a visa may not be a crime, but failing to register when you have an obligation, is.
You do realize that we have something like between a half a million and a million Mexicans sneak across the border each year? Exactly how many are you alleging are here on expired visas? Mexicans make up more than 50% of the illegal immigrant populace, are you going to claim that of the 40-50% of illegal immigrants are here on expired visas and they’re all Mexicans? Mostly Mexicans? It’s the other 43% of people who are here illegally, the ones who aren’t Mexicans, and they’re the ones who are really sneaking across the border?
In keeping with Marley’s dictates, I will simply point out that not only did I never say such a thing, but I’ve clarified several times that I was talking about “aliens that have entered improperly” and that I have cited or quoted that to you, multiple times.
In keeping with Marley’s dictates, I will simply point out that not only is your claim not true, but I have already cited the actual US law which says, quite clearly, that aliens must register and if they do not they are guilty of a criminal violation.
It is not a crime to overstay one’s visa if they’re already registered, but to enter the country illegally and refuse to register is, actually, two separate crimes. And in keeping with Marley’s injunction I will point out that trying to change the subject to only people who overstay their visas is needlessly diverting the actual topic to something else.
This post is fine. I’m telling you (and CBEscapee) to make your arguments without the insulting asides about “pretzling.”
Well, the attack was on his argument and not him as a person, as the argument itself is snarled back in upon itself, but I am willing to do my best to point out that failure of his argument without using words that are too snarky. That being said, his argument is essentially:
-If America is a nation where roughly 8+% of people have used drugs one or more times per month, then America can be said to be a nation with an insatiable drug habit.
-If Mexico is a nation where roughly 6+% of people are engaged in criminal violations of the US code and/or many of those involved in criminal violations are not suited to American jobs more demanding than menial labor, then it is horrible, just horrible to say that Mexico can be said to be a nation with an insatiable thirst for criminality and menial labor with a dedication to illegal immigration because menial labor is still a step up from from life in Mexico.
-The standard involved is a double standard that takes a line of logic and twists it back in upon itself in order for one generalization to be okay and another to be vile prejudice that CB objects to and uses to claim that America is a racist nation because, allegedly, Americans use the exact same logic he’s using to make the exact same sort of generalizations about Mexico that he is making about America.
CB’s argument has conflated aliens that have entered improperly and/or aliens who willfully avoided their duty to register with all aliens who overstay their visas, has conflated all of North America with the US, has repeatedly incorrectly used data in order to make the false-to-facts claim that those who sneak across the border and/or fail to register are not criminals under US law, etc…
For these reasons I am stating that his argument is hollow.
Here are some facts:
The USA is the world’s largest consumer of illegal drugs.
In 1998, Americans spent $67 billion for illegal drugs, a sum of money greater than the amount spent that year to finance public higher education in the United States. (source: US DoJ)
Hillary Clinton is on record as saying the USA has an insatiable appetite for illegal drugs.
The San Francisco Gate published an Associated Press article titled “U.S. appetite for illegal drugs is insatiable”
In fact Google will return numerous cites, too many to post here, from US sources that span the political spectrum, on illegal drug debate that describe illegal drug use in the US in an identical manner.
Fact:
I have quoted a US Attorney on record as saying presence in the US without a valid visa is not a violation of federal criminal code. It is a civil law violation. People that violate civil law are not consider criminals.
I have also quoted the same US Attorney as stating that 40 to 50% of all foriegners illegally present in the US arrive legally with a valid visa and overstay there allowed time.
People who enter the US legally with a proper visa issued by the US government have indeed registered. 1301 of the same law cited by Finn Again states:
“No visa shall be issued to any alien seeking to enter the United States until such alien has been registered in accordance with section 1201 (b) of this title.”
So apparently they have not violated a criminal code of the USA.
Marley, what are the allowable words/phrases to describe an argument like this?
Has it or has it not been pointed out that on a per capita basis, the US is actually very unremarkable on the global stage compared to nations with a similar standard of living?
How many times has it been pointed out that entering the US illegally is a crime, and the discussion is over “aliens that have entered improperly”? Has it or has it not been pointed out that that cite was not only used to distort the issue but was cherrypicked and actually refuted CB’s own argument as it clearly stated that aliens who enter the country improperly are criminals under US law?
Has it or has it not been pointed out that a simple percent like this doesn’t tell us anything about the percent of Mexican aliens that have entered improperly and that treating it like it does is misleading? Has it or has it not been pointed out that it doesn’t square with any facts at all to claim that that 40-50% is mostly/entirely Mexican while ignoring the millions who sneak over the border year to year and claiming that there are millions of Mexicans overstaying their legal visas and something like 5 million other people are the ones sneaking over the borders?
Is this or is this not distorting the actual issue at hand, where a discussion of ‘aliens who entered the country improperly’ is switched with a comment about those who aren’t aliens who entered the country improperly, and therefore have visas?
And is this all not in the service of defending saying things like “Americans are insatiably hungry for drugs!” since 8+% of Americans have used drugs at least once in the last month… but that it would be wrong (and probably racist) to say something like that “Mexicans are insatiably dedicated to criminality!” since 6+% of Mexicans are criminals under US federal law?
What words are acceptable to point out that it is an argument that is misusing facts and does the opposite of elucidating the subject?