I never meant to imply that you did. But what we were discussiing in the other thread is fundemental to any discussion about immigration reform. I would say that one cannot have a serious position on the immigration issue without at least having a position on the topics I brought up in my last two posts there. But I will cease with this diversion from this thread now. If you would like to respond, you know where it is. If not, onward.
You are exactly right. I never said otherwise. Ishold have proabably said “…an ordinary catapult wilol never give you…”. The point that seems to elude Gigo is they are not synonymous, which is why in the original dumb joke I changed “catapult” to “trebuchet”.
I hope we can move on now.
Gigo, I hope you find the explanation above helpful. If you’d like to pursue more concerning the relationship between the two items in question, or the definition of the word “synonymous”, feel free to open a new thread, as this has already turned into an annoying, albeit minor, hijack. I will not comment on the subject further in this thread.
Now, your last “response” on topic was:
Tell me, can you not really see that those things were brought up merely as examples of crime problems? Period. Crimes problems that we can “fix”, according to the idea you offered concerning the illegal immigration, simply by rewriting our laws and defining them away? Can you truly not see that? Or are you once again being dishonest and trying to portray my position as one that equates illegal immigration and rape? You wouldn’t do that would you? Especially after you tried doing something similar here
and I had to correct you.
Now, if possible, I’d like to get back to the actual debate.
I have to say that I was surprised to see this:
So, we agree that our laws should be enforced. Good. We disagree on what those laws should be. Not surprising. Tell me, after your earned amnesty is put into effect, what degree of control do you think we should have on or borders? And what do we do when there are still more people who want to come in than we allot slots? How about if they sneak in. Do we simply fine them, as well, and allow them to stay?
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expand? The question had to do with what you with do to those people who do not follow the rules as you advocate them. Also, what do you do with those who sneak in or over stay their visas after your laws become effective?
Dag. That is a bunch of info. I’ll read it after game 2. 
To be fair to the media, they only get so much time to squeeze in information in between the sensationalism.
Thanks for the link.
See, when I read this, my first thought was, “You know, I’d pay good money to catapult a congresscritter…”
The dishonest thing is that it was you who wrought it up, you are tap dancing in your latest attempt now to say I’m the dishonest one.
Further dishonesty is in not taking it back or realizing that you were poisoning the well by making the equation, your foolishness comes then by being so pigheaded to not realize not all crimes are the same and they will never deserve the same (implied) punishment.
In other words, your “examples” suck big donkey balls, and deserve all the scorn.
The degree of control should be ovbious after what I posted, more enforcement and protection to our borders that will be funded with the ones that can probe they worked in the USA for x years.
If they show no criminal record they will stay, if not, they will go unless a sponsor is willing to risk pay any fines and taxes if the new arrival does not register. Incidentally now the IRS will have a bigger stake at this, and as Al Capone found there is no escaping it. The ultimate point is to make the immigrant community pay for the privilege to get people in, knowing human nature, I bet they will eventually realize it is better to prevent more of their kind to come in, since it will affect now their pocketbooks directly.
You are simply too stupid to converse with. That is all.
Who wrought those stupid examples then? Frankly in other situations like in GD I would not reply after seeing that idiotic examples of yours, but this is the pit.
In the fairy land of **magellan01 ** it would be appropriate, but I’m more pragmatic, my local congress critter just showed to be an ignorant of the 1986 law and he is still there making laws, but they will have another thing coming, Americans of Hispanic heritage are not lying down for this, as I mentioned before even Hispanic owners of American businesses are not amused.
The only thing conservatives will get of this deal is similar of what LBJ did go through when he said “we lost the south”, I think someone in the sorry Republican leadership will say in the future that “we lost the west”
Two other issues are that laws are created and enacted out of moral concerns. Society doesn’t want people killing each other, so the government makes a law. Likewise, stealing is considered bad, so there’s a law. And coming into the country is illegal (but–the difference is that it is not for moral moral reasons; rather labor and economic reasons) and has also been illegalized (it wasn’t always so when your grandparents came from the “old country,” learned perfect English in a few weeks, and made a point of not fraternizing too much with other people from their own country; we’ve all heard that story). Ahh, the good old days.
Until recently, in L.A. it was illegal to bathe two children in a bathtub at the same time. I’m sure that would have outraged you, too, had anyone had the audacity to do such a thing. (It’s a very immoral thing to do.) In fact–now that we’re talking about the border–it’s illegal to take in more than one liter of tequila, or Cuban cigars, when returning from Mexico. I’m sure the idea that someone would do this enrages you, so I suggest you go to the border and help the Customs people find out the culprits that do this; I’m sure they’d love your help. You can call yourselves the “Tequilamen,” and use radios to inform the authorities of anyone tyring to do such a heinous act.
Actually, I really do respect your opinions; I’m just a little surprised at the vehemence at which you express them. Has illegal immigration really hurt you personally all that much? If so, I’d like to know about it. Tell me the details. Did some wetback get your job picking tomatoes, even though you were clearly more qualified? Or was it that busboy job you were just dying for?
I really appreciate that Eva, and have admired your posts in the past. I just haven’t had the time to go over all the info. I will, though, and hope to communicate with you more.
Cerberus said:
[/QUOTE]
As for you, mister husband, if you love your wife so much, then try immigrating and living and working legally in Mexico as a non-citizen. Try to own land, try to naturalise fully. Really. Good luck with that.
[QUOTE]
I"m married to a Mexican woman. I have lived in Mexico for twenty two years. I work legally, I own land, and I could be naturalized if I wanted to. What is your point?
Some rather interesting links here:
http://www.todossantos.cc/meximmig.html
http://www.mexperience.com/liveandwork/immigration.htm
http://www.house.gov/duncan/en040606.htm
It appears that the Mexicans and their government want us to take their laws seriously, while making an abject mockery of ours.
My point is actually two-fold:
-
The pro-illegal crowd, including Fox and his government, want an asymmetric arrangement, where Mexico can have more restrictions on immigration and the rights of naturalized citizens than the US, with no-one pointing out the hypocrisy.
-
That if the aggrieved husband thinks that the US is playing a bit rough with the immigration laws, then perhaps he should try the Mexican laws.
Gustave:
“Wetbacks”?! I call foul. Could someone tell me how “wetack” is any different from spic, nigger, kike, heeb, fag, … ? Or is it ok for “non-Balck Hearted Sons of Bitches” to use racially hateful terms?
Let’s turn a political (albeit a rather heated one) into a game of racial projection.
Nice.
Try debating facts, rather than going personal. It seems to be impossible to have rational debate on this topic without becoming an instant racist if one actually opposes the abuse of immigration laws and citizenship.
Of course, given that this thread opened as heated “Fuck You” to all those “knee-jerks” who oppose your approach of ignoring the laws whenever your personal situation “merits an exception”.
Some laws are based on morality, some are based on practicality. And one of the main reasons we have the laws (mainly the moral ones), enforced by the state, is that when someone suffers an injustice at the hands of another they have recourse other than settling the score on thier own. This is particularly relevant to people who live near the border. Damage is done to property and what is the homeoner to do? Call the cops right? But what if you’re calling them every week or every day. And they continue to come after the damage is done/ The offenders are long goneor , if they are caught, there is no remedy monetarily. So after months of this, aren’t you allowed to protect your property with a firearm. Now this just leads to a guaranteed ugly situation. OUr society says call the cops. But the cops can’t patrol around everyones property 24/7. The answer is a completely secure border. Whether it takes a wall, a fence, or both and a moat, with constant electronic surveillance, we must do it. At the same time we should be enforcing our current laws against both illegal workers and the people who hire them.
Regardless of the reasons behiind any particular law, if you disagree with it or deem it an unjust law, you can work to change it. In the meantime, you flout it at your own risk. I’m not sure of the point you are trying to make—possibly that immigration law has no moral absolute behind it the way laws against murder do? If so, from a theistic point of view I’d agree. But I would say that a group of people can band together (nation) and put forth a set of laws that they deem useful for the continuance of the society as they see fit. I think people have the moral right to do this.
I don’t see how it is immoral. It does seem ridiculous, though. I am unaware of any such law, if and when it was in place and why it was enacted. Maybe it was a public health issue, to work against the spread of disease. I would like to know the context for such a seemingly ridiculous law, but I can’t see how it would be called immoral.
You are attributing a threshold for my ire that does not exist. I’ve never been robbed, but despise burglars. I’ve never been hit by a drunk driver, yet I did volunteer work for MADD. The extinctions of large mammals in Africa are 7,000 miles removed from me, yet I’ve worked on their behalf. I have never been, and never will be pregnant, yet I feel strongly that a woman should have control of her own body. Do you not have principles which you would argue for, even if you were never directly effected?
I’m not sure if you would consider where your tax dollars go as being directly effected. I would. I strongly resent having to pay to educate the children of people who sneaked into this country. I even more resent that they treat our emergency rooms as clinics, driving up costs and causing hospitals to close.
As I’ve mentined elsewhere numerous times, a country has the right to set it’s own immigration policy. Countries and individuals can petition us to change those policies, but in the end, it is our decision to make. The primary reason for the existence of the nation state and the defined borders it is bound by is to provide for the common defence of it’s citizens. The U.S. government has been laying down on the job. There has been an unspoken alliance between the two parties to keep the issue off the table. (The dems want votes. The Reps want to 1) make inroads into the hispanic voting base and 2) kowtow to big business, in return for financial contributions.) They both disgust me, perticulalry the latter. The governement has been negligent in it’s duty in 1) keeping a secure border and 2) allowing 11 million people in here without running background and health checks on them.
Now that these people are here they are tapping into our services. The costs in both healthcare and edcuation are sizable. I appreciate that your wife has not contributed to that drain on our system. As you seem to acknowledge, not all have the same sense of reponsibility that you and she do.
As I pointed out in my first post, laws are crafted for the norm, not the exception. I’m sure every law has unintended consequences. When they surface we may address the issue, depending Sometimes we can remedy the odd case or make more general exceptions. I think there is room in the proposed law for the latter. But even if there is, it will not make room for every speciaal circumstance. That’s just the nature of law. Any law.
Are you familiar with a little concept called “sarcasm?”
I sincerely doubt that a poster here could use any other slur in such a careless or vindictive way. So can we use any other of the slurs here, so long as a third party flags it as “sarcastic”? Regardless of intent, the word itslef is highly inappropriate.
Well, I think we should call a “spade” a “spade;” how about you, cerberus?
I think that it’s hard enough to debate immigration issues without conflating said issues with race. When the members doing the arguing impute racial intent by the use of, or projecting of racial slurs, it becomes quite impossible.
WHOOSE!!!
Could you please grow the Hell up???!!!