Can a person be a criminal? Or is it only their actions that can be criminal?
Are there felons, or just – people whose actions happen to be felonies?
If someone tells me a guy is “a murderer,” I don’t stamp my foot and wag a finger and insist that “no, only his actions can be murder.” If someone uses the word "prostitute," I don’t leap to my feet and shout “a person can’t be a prostitute; it’s merely their actions that can be prostitution.”
I don’t know you; maybe you likewise object to “shoplifter” and “arsonist” and so on, forever telling folks that a person can’t be such a thing, but can only do it.
Do you? Should I?
[stamping my foot and wagging my finger]
People cannot be workers! Only their actions can be work!
Yes, special gear that is available at Home Depot. The chain that has dozens and dozens of locations in Mexico.
In the US, they cost about $300 and weigh about 60-70 pounds. Cite.
Shoot, they probably don’t have to even be carried for miles and miles. Throw one on the back of a truck, drive reasonably close to where you want to cross the wall, and then carry it the rest of the way. Leave it there for others to use later.
But as to your last question, man, you got me there. I am completely baffled as to how one might scale a 30 foot wall, and then get down the other side. Bringing two ladders is like science-fiction kind of nonsense – totally implausible! Having a rope seems like a stretch too, because I’m not even sure they have ropes in Mexico. As far as I know, the Mexican word for “rope” is “ropa,” and I don’t think the illegals will want to be caught crossing the border with “ropa” on them. Maybe the Messicans can climb up the top of the wall, and then walk along the top of the wall until they reach the end of it, and then jump down from there. It’s also silly to think that cargo netting could be used, because we’re talking about a wall on land, not scaling down the side of a ship.
You might have hit on the genius of the wall: these bad hombres will climb up, but then get stuck on the top, like cats in a tree who are unable to scale down. Then our fearless immigration agents can just scoop them up by the dozens.
illegal(North American English) a person who lives or works in a country illegally.
Clearly it doesn’t matter to you if people disobey the laws of other countries. that’s your prerogative. but what you’re doing is hijacking a word in an attempt to demonize those you disagree with.
We are a nation of immigrants. We came here legally under the laws and regulations of this country and expect others to do so. Those who do not are illegal immigrants or illegals for short.
Not in the U.S. we haven’t. Restrictions on the flow of immigrants based on health or ability to work began only in 1882, with the Immigration Act of that year, which barred “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of him or herself without becoming a public charge.” Medical inspections began in 1891.
Previous federal immigration laws banned would-be immigrants on the basis of national origin (e.g., the Page Act, intended to keep out Chinese prostitutes), and even those date only from the 1870s and 80s. (Laws banning the import of slaves from Africa, of course, date back much earlier.) For the first century of the nation’s existence, basically anybody who could walk, crawl, or be carried off the boat was welcome here, without restriction.
Did you really go back over 130’s ago to make a point? Prior to the Louisiana Purchase the United States didn’t exist as the continent-spanning nation it is today. There wasn’t the ability to easily travel great distances. It was a non-issue.
When it became an issue we chose to control our borders just as every other nation did. The point you tried to make was disingenuous at best.
It’s a totally legitimate and not at all disingenuous response to this:
The point is that the immigrant ancestors of many citizens today entered the country with no restriction. That would be the case for my ancestors. I don’t know about yours.
The point is that immigrants back then broke no laws, and that – some folks today immigrate by breaking no laws, and some folks today immigrate by breaking the law? I’m honestly not seeing the relevance.
Imagine I told you that, back when, there were no laws hereabouts against a man in his twenties drinking a beer – and, nowadays, it’s still legal for some guys in their twenties, who are breaking no laws; but it’s illegal for other guys in their twenties, who’d be breaking the law. And, uh, so what, right? My ancestors legally drank beers at twenty, but it’d be illegal for someone to do that today; so what?
The Louisiana Purchase was in 1803. The first immigration restrictions based on health were in 1882. That’s three quarters of a century where a continent-spanning nation accepted all comers. In fact, the first restrictions on the NUMBERS of immigrants came only in 1921.
In other words, the United States as a continent-spanning nation allowed unrestricted numbers of immigrants for longer than it has imposed such restrictions. That’s not being disingenuous–that’s being honest and accurate with the facts.
And what exactly do you mean by “when it became an issue we chose to control our borders”? What do you regard as the date when we chose to control our borders, and what was the issue, exactly?
I regard that date as 1921–that’s when the “golden door” slammed shut. That was well over half a century after the completion of the transcontinental railroad made travel across great distances easy. What really changed was the changes in where the immigrants come from: good solid Americans decided they didn’t want all those funny foreigners, increasingly Catholic and Orthodox rather than Protestant, increasingly from southern and eastern Europe rather than the Anglo-Saxon realms, “polluting” our country. (And yes, it is quite easy to find openly racist speakers arguing why immigration needed to be restricted. Remember this was the [first] heyday of the Red Scare and the KKK.)
I still don’t get the relevance. How long did the law allow men to beat their wives? And yet, now, it’s illegal! And if some wifebeater here and now mentions that guys back in the day used to smack their wives around legally – so what? I don’t care how long it used to be legal! I don’t get why he’s even mentioning it!
Hell, it used to be that folks could own slaves. But that’s illegal now! I don’t care how long it used to be legal; the point is the “used to be”, because the question is whether it’s illegal now. Tons of stuff that’s illegal now used to be legal; so what?
The argument is being made that, “well, MY ancestors followed the law, so why can’t these other people follow the law?” [see #83 for an example]
This totally misses the point that when the ancestors of most Americans immigrated, there weren’t any laws to follow–anybody who wanted to come could come. When our ancestors fled the potato famine of the 1840s, or the revolution of 1848 or the political upheavals of the 1860s and 70s, or merely sought a better life in the 18th or 19th centuries, they were free to come without any restriction whatsoever.
Those fleeing modern-day famines and political upheavals, though, don’t have the same opportunities. If today’s rules had been in effect way back when, St. Paddy’s Day in Boston would not be memorable, and Lancaster County would have very few Amish, and it would be tough to find cannoli in Queens. Modern would-be immigrants are not somehow different or more criminal than our ancestors; it’s just that the rules have changed. Those changes, and the failure of some people to recognize these changes, is the relevant point.
If someone says the ancestors of most Americans worked back when there were no minimum-wage laws – excuse me, “without any restriction whatsoever” – then I genuinely don’t see what that has to do with the fact that such restrictions are now in place; what was legal then is illegal now, and, well, that’s, uh, true?
Yeah, okay; I hereby recognize that there have been changes. Used to be, people could discriminate on the basis of sex “without any restriction whatsoever” – and they did so, because it wasn’t illegal then – but now there are restrictions, so now it’s illegal to do that. Folks used to be able to use cocaine legally, and now they can’t; “it’s just that the rules have changed.” Duly noted, okay?
I’m sure there are other examples; mention some and I’ll recognize those too.
Are you arguing that people back then who discriminated on the basis of sex were morally superior to people who discriminate on the basis of sex today, merely because back then there weren’t any laws to restrict it? (I’m going to guess you would not make that argument, but feel free to correct me.)
That seems to be the argument being made in posts like #83: people who break immigration laws are lesser beings and inferior to people who lived before such laws existed.
I have no idea what my ancestors would have done if they’d been confronted with today’s laws: maybe they would have been law-abiding, and maybe they would have concluded “to hell with the Yankee law, we need to get out of Ireland.” I certainly don’t have grounds to conclude that the fact they never had to make that choice somehow means they were “better” than those who do.
People who discriminated on the basis of sex before it was banned were not criminals, but that doesn’t automatically make them worthy of admiration for not breaking the law, so why should people who immigrated before there were immigration laws automatically be worthy of admiration for not violating non-existent laws? Recognizing that there have been changes in the laws requires recognizing how responses have differed and been shaped by the changes in the law.
if trunp got it lower with his discussion and our poor economy so much the better
if your illegal you should go home
I might have some diff options for dreamers
I’m arguing that, if we catch you doing it today, we’re going to (a) note that you’re breaking the law and we’re going to (b) react accordingly to your illegal activity. And if you say “but people used to do it legally, because there weren’t any laws to restrict it back then,” we’re going to patiently explain that it’s illegal now.
Uh, yeah; all sorts of stuff that used to be legal here is now illegal, which is why we now respond to it by fining you or jailing you or whatever. That wasn’t how we responded when it was legal, but it’s how we respond now that it’s illegal.
I guess I figured everybody on both sides of the debate already knew that: that we respond differently to stuff after it becomes illegal. Again, if a twenty-year-old gets caught drinking a beer, and protests that his ancestors – and mine! – legally drank beer back when there were no laws against it, we’re going to (a) note that; and then (b) point out that, since it’s illegal now, the response will be different.
Forced in part by NAFTA. A lot of people who now need Visas to visit Mexico, or even a work permit for a 24h business trip, did not need such things pre-NAFTA. Those restrictions are Mexico policing the US’s southern borders.
