Mexican Violence/Liberal Silence

[bradleybadly]

we already have statutes to deal with violent crime. I propose we make all immigration legal and require people to get a social security number and "register" (for lack of a better term) with the federal government. Anyone committing a violent crime is punished accordingly.

Alright I know you're upset with me going this direction, but you're not dealing with the original crime. Illegal immigrants are disrespecting our laws by coming here without proper papers in the first place. If they are not willing to abide by current laws, they will not abide by any other standard of the law that we set up. Once you eliminate the original standard, they are going to see how far they can go with not abiding by the changed standard.

I'm going to use my gun analogy now - people may commit crimes with guns. Do you propose that we outlaw guns? Or do you propose that we prosecute the people who commit crimes with guns? Clearly, I support the latter and not the former. Illegal immigrants may commit crimes. Do you propose we outlaw illegal immigration? Or do you propose that we prosecute the people who commit the crimes. Again, I choose the latter and not the former.

This is absurd in my opinion (you're not absurd, personally - neither is Player). I'll go back and repeat that you're not dealing with the original breaking of the law. With the gun analogy, current law says that the act of owning a gun is lawful. With our current immigration law, the act of illegally entering the country is in itself a breaking of the law. Illegal immigrants may choose to use the breaking of immigration law and compound the problem by committing other acts of violent crime (many do), but the original act of crossing the border illegally is the act of defiance itself.

You're way of dealing with it (if I understand correctly) is to just make illegality legal. That's a slippery slope and I think it's a dangerous one.

I'm not sure what this means, but I'd like your opinion. Do you think that the Anglo-Americans were right in trying to kick the illegal (and legal) Irish, Greeks, Italians, etc. out of the country back in the 19th and 20th centuries? Again, I see no difference between the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the 19th and 20th centuries and the anti-immigration rhetoric I see now.

What I was saying is that there is not reconciling your position with mine on this point. You are entitled to your opinion, but when you reject the basis of my argument and I reject yours, I think it's just better to not continue arguing. At some point I just have to respect your right to believe this particular point. The only way of reconciling it is at the ballot box.

Yes, they are committing a crime. A crime that hurts no one. I was referring to the violent crimes that you were referring to. There are people who may or may not be committing a violent crime (the reason you give for enforcing immigration laws).

My point was that illegal immigrants, particularly on the southern border, are committing violent crimes - this is a symptom of the original and intentional violation of our immigration laws. Once you don't enforce the original standard, there's no reason for illegal immigrants to believe you'll enforce others.

Now, to your point about them committing a crime that doesn't hurt anyone. If that's the case then why don't we just get rid of all boundaries and property lines? Why can't people just enter business buildings when they're not operating? It's not really hurting anyone. Why can't anyone walk onto your property when they feel like it? They're not harming anyone by doing so. Why can't anyone just enter your home when they feel like it? They're not harming anyone by doing so. I say that if you try to keep people from coming into your home or property then you are violating their civil rights. They are people with the same rights as yourself.

To use the reasoning of our glorious president as it applies to people in your neighborhood, Greekdog - "In the 21st century, we are not defined by our fences, gates, garage or screen doors, but by our bonds. Let us stand together. Let us face the future together. Let us work together"

Oh stop it. We were having a great discussion until you went all intellectually dishonest here. Divesting ourselves of immigration quota is the best solution to violent crime problems committed by illegal immigrants.

There's nothing intentionally dishonest on my part. I think it's a legitimate point to question the idea that when some statute becomes tough to enforce we just quit and make it legal. If you apply that reasoning to other areas of the law you could have a very troublesome world. I could turn that around and say you are being intellectually dishonest because you lack the will to enforce the current immigration laws. I wouldn't do that because I've read your stuff here on the forums and know that you don't try to do that.

So I think the question could be turned around to why don't people have the political courage or will to enforce the law? If people don't, then what's to keep them from using that same logic with other areas of the law? From people I talk to at work and around town, it's because it's a matter of practicality and not a respect for the rule of law.

[Juan_Bottom]

However, Juan claimed that it was due to brown skin and showing no ID. That is nowhere in the Arizona bill. That shows me that he didn't read the bill and is just projecting what he wants into his argument.

No that's not what I meant!!! I was gunning more for; Having Brown Skin and having no ID. If you are not carrying an ID and get questioned if you are an Illegal, then they can detain you as an illegal immigrant more simply based on your skin color. I'm still reading the bill, but I will be done shortly. Anyway, player has answered pretty much as I would have anyway, so I defer to her.

[Phatscotty]

Violent crimes is not the main problem, just one of MANY. Namely, more people receiving money/benefits from the government than actually pay in. I call it survival.

Do you know that businesses have an affirmative duty to withhold payroll taxes from their employees? I would say this is a problem for the employers of illegal immigrants more than the illegal immigrants themselves. I've found that conservatives have a blind spot to this. Although, I suspect the next words you type will be - "Punish the employers too." Which is valid, but isn't going to happen.

It is a problem for both of them. I am not trying to blame one or the other, or more than the other. They are both guilty.

BUT, if there are no illegal workers available, then how can a company continue to exploit them?

I guess it comes down to enforcing on the ILLEGAL immigrants side of the argument ... Most legals support this

Except, here is the problem with your "logic". The illegal immigrants did not create this situation, they merely hopped in to take advantage of it.

Your honor, I did not create the cocaine epidemic, I merely sold some to take advantage of it.

Immigrants Hopping on to take advantage is why we have the fucking problem ya dip


Nice logic...

[PLAYER57832]

we already have statutes to deal with violent crime. I propose we make all immigration legal and require people to get a social security number and "register" (for lack of a better term) with the federal government. Anyone committing a violent crime is punished accordingly.

Alright I know you're upset with me going this direction, but you're not dealing with the original crime. Illegal immigrants are disrespecting our laws by coming here without proper papers in the first place. If they are not willing to abide by current laws, they will not abide by any other standard of the law that we set up. ] Once you eliminate the original standard, they are going to see how far they can go with not abiding by the changed standard.

This is simply not born up by the evidence. We don't have a 10,000,000 -strong crime wave here. We have 10,000,000 workers. Anytime you compare crime in the illegal population to the regular population, they come out better, except that they are more likely to be a victim of crime.

This is proven over and over. That so many dismiss this is one of the reasons why "racism" gets mentioned. Because, if you look at the real facts, they are not creating a crime wave here.

You talk about law as if it were solid. I agree, that with very few exceptions laws should be obeyed, simply because they exist. However, I can gaurantee that if MY kids were starving (I mean literally), I would not think too badly of going onto public land and heisting an out-season game species, etc. I suspect you might think the same. A lot of people would draw that line well before me. I don't think most of us would translate that into killing endangered species for the fun or it or taking a TV from someone's house.

In this case, though, its something else. The laws that limit so severely the number of Mexicans that can come to this country just don't work. They are way, way too low.

When a law is bad, you change the law. To go back to that previous example, while I would not There is not legal way for most Mexicans to come here. That is the second part you are missing. There is no high quota like existed for many Europeans. There are very, very limited programs that don't allow anything close to the numbers of people here.
gotta go... sorry for stopping mid-debate

I'm going to use my gun analogy now - people may commit crimes with guns. Do you propose that we outlaw guns? Or do you propose that we prosecute the people who commit crimes with guns? Clearly, I support the latter and not the former. Illegal immigrants may commit crimes. Do you propose we outlaw illegal immigration? Or do you propose that we prosecute the people who commit the crimes. Again, I choose the latter and not the former.

This is absurd in my opinion (you're not absurd, personally - neither is Player). I'll go back and repeat that you're not dealing with the original breaking of the law. With the gun analogy, current law says that the act of owning a gun is lawful. With our current immigration law, the act of illegally entering the country is in itself a breaking of the law. Illegal immigrants may choose to use the breaking of immigration law and compound the problem by committing other acts of violent crime (many do), but the original act of crossing the border illegally is the act of defiance itself.

You're way of dealing with it (if I understand correctly) is to just make illegality legal. That's a slippery slope and I think it's a dangerous one.

I am going to pick this up again here, though its a bit of a break.

Laws are supposed to be here for a reason. However, there are many times when a law makes sense and then things change and the law no longer makes sense. The thing is that millions of Mexicans come here because they are able to find jobs and work here. How is that bad? You say it is bad because of the way they do it. First, as Greek dog mentioned, the truth is that many people have always come here illegally. That is largely irrelevant, but this idea that only those who come here legally are the ones who have built this country is just wrong. Its always been a mixture.

These limits were also always very intentionally slanted toward the white Europeans, and particularly toward Protestants. If you look today, that part has changed only a little. BUT, the needs and demands for people to come here have shifted a great deal. The immigration limits have shifted some, but not to the point of meeting the demand, the demand by people wanting to come and the demand by employers wanting new laborers.

In the past, employers, at least, have dictated the limits. When railworkers were needed, workers were allowed to come work the rails. When farmworkers were needed, some programs opened up. BUT, that has not happened recently. Instead, we have a known porous border and the false, almost slap in the face promise of repeated waves of "amnesty". We cannot change the limits to allow more to come here legally, but we CAN give them amensty? Not just once, either, but over and over.

The real truth is that Mexicans who want to come here, either to work or for their safety have almost no chance of coming here legally. The limits allowed for every legal program are way, way below the need. Need on both sides, for people wanting to come and employers wanting to hire.

Yes, they are committing a crime. A crime that hurts no one. I was referring to the violent crimes that you were referring to. There are people who may or may not be committing a violent crime (the reason you give for enforcing immigration laws).

My point was that illegal immigrants, particularly on the southern border, are committing violent crimes - this is a symptom of the original and intentional violation of our immigration laws. Once you don't enforce the original standard, there's no reason for illegal immigrants to believe you'll enforce others.

I completely disagree with your reasoning here. Yes, the crime is a factor in the illegal entry trade, BUT.. and this is a pretty big "but", it is not because these people are just willfully breaking the law. The truth is again that it is tied to the US problem with drugs. Note that Mexico, by all accounts really does not have much of a drug use problem. The sales are mostly up here in the US. We have not been able to control OUR problem and it is spilling heavily down there.

So, people flee the violance created by US people, flee to try and find sanctuary here .. .and this is supposed to be a their problem?

I can remember well when the border was NOT so violant. That is, sure, there was always a "lawless" aspect to parts of northern mexico, TExas, etc. However, my friends families would go camping down there, kids drove down regularly. People came across regularly. It was no big deal to cross and come on up.

It wasn't 9-11 that changed this. It was not killings and violance. No. What changed all this was, plain and simply, the campaign against Marihuana and the tightening of the border, which happened about the same time. The tightening was about controlling drugs, not people. Drugs that the US was buying.

Now, to your point about them committing a crime that doesn't hurt anyone. If that's the case then why don't we just get rid of all boundaries and property lines? Why can't people just enter business buildings when they're not operating? It's not really hurting anyone. Why can't anyone walk onto your property when they feel like it? They're not harming anyone by doing so. Why can't anyone just enter your home when they feel like it? They're not harming anyone by doing so. I say that if you try to keep people from coming into your home or property then you are violating their civil rights. They are people with the same rights as yourself.

To use the reasoning of our glorious president as it applies to people in your neighborhood, Greekdog - "In the 21st century, we are not defined by our fences, gates, garage or screen doors, but by our bonds. Let us stand together. Let us face the future together. Let us work together"

Oh stop it. We were having a great discussion until you went all intellectually dishonest here. Divesting ourselves of immigration quota is the best solution to violent crime problems committed by illegal immigrants.

There's nothing intentionally dishonest on my part. I think it's a legitimate point to question the idea that when some statute becomes tough to enforce we just quit and make it legal. If you apply that reasoning to other areas of the law you could have a very troublesome world. I could turn that around and say you are being intellectually dishonest because you lack the will to enforce the current immigration laws. I wouldn't do that because I've read your stuff here on the forums and know that you don't try to do that.

Actually when a law becomes too tough to enforce, it often IS time to change it. Speed limits on some highways are a good example. A universal limit of 55 MPH just does not make sense on a major freeway designed to take cars 70 MPH or on an open Montana highway.

So I think the question could be turned around to why don't people have the political courage or will to enforce the law? If people don't, then what's to keep them from using that same logic with other areas of the law? From people I talk to at work and around town, it's because it's a matter of practicality and not a respect for the rule of law.

The lack of enforcement has nothing to do with the rule of law. The truth is that a lot of powerful people benefit by having a workforce willing to work for poorer conditions, lower pay and who won't be "touchy" about things like payroll taxes.

You also have a huge segment in agriculture that needs this supply of workers because citizens just won't do the back-breaking work. Many of those farms are corporations, but many are also still relatively small, single-family owned farms. (note that a farm can be quite large and still be just a single family farm, because it takes a lot of acreage to support a family in some types of farming).

Basically, these folks were given the key to our border, told to come on in, then now... they are being used as scapegoats to divert attention from other, real problems.

[Phatscotty]

Here is my logic.



You want to stand against the USA's borders? At least face us and fight us for it, instead of playing cowardly race games.

[Juan_Bottom]

God Damn It!!!

Phatscotty just made me laugh like hell.

[Phatscotty]

God Damn It!!!

Phatscotty just made me laugh like hell.

Heart makes all the difference

[DangerBoy]

If Mexican illegals crossing our border isn't harming anyone, then by what right does Mexico have to detain, arrest, and deport Central Americans who enter their southern border illegally?

[DangerBoy]

This is simply not born up by the evidence.

yes it is. Illegal immigrants by their very definition are illegals. They are breaking the law. Therefore, it's a 100% crime rate.

[Juan_Bottom]

If Mexican illegals crossing our border isn't harming anyone, then by what right does Mexico have to detain, arrest, and deport Central Americans who enter their southern border illegally?

Personally I don't care what the Mexican government's stance is; I'm an American. And I hold firmly to very ideal that was put into words and placed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I am aware that the statue points towards Europe only but it was a gift from France....

Furthermore: As an American, I hold myself to a high moral code. I don't believe for one second that having illegal immigrants here is good for our $$$. But even if we deport everyone, will that solve the problems? Wont they just cross over again and get hired somewhere? I don't see why we can't see another option presented (that's directed at the Conservatives that shouted down G.H.W. Bush's plan). Detaining someone because they may be illegal doesn't seem sensible or practical to me. And this isn't a fight Arizona could win on it's own by going after the immigrants themselves.

[Phatscotty]

Furthermore: As an American, I hold myself to a high moral code. I don't believe for one second that having illegal immigrants here is good for our $$$. But even if we deport everyone, will that solve the problems? Wont they just cross over again and get hired somewhere? I don't see why we can't see another option presented (that's directed at the Conservatives that shouted down G.H.W. Bush's plan). Detaining someone because they may be illegal doesn't seem sensible or practical to me. And this isn't a fight Arizona could win on it's own by going after the immigrants themselves.

I appreciate your high moral code. I wish you would use your head a little more and realize that a high moral code can be used against you. Case in point, if you tell someone you will do anything to avoid a fight, then your opponent knows this, and will fucking own you. sure, it is morally the high ground to walk away from the fight, but you are going to get owned for the rest of your life by anyone that knows your "code".

Try combining your morals with a pair of balls

[Woodruff]

Furthermore: As an American, I hold myself to a high moral code. I don't believe for one second that having illegal immigrants here is good for our $$$. But even if we deport everyone, will that solve the problems? Wont they just cross over again and get hired somewhere? I don't see why we can't see another option presented (that's directed at the Conservatives that shouted down G.H.W. Bush's plan). Detaining someone because they may be illegal doesn't seem sensible or practical to me. And this isn't a fight Arizona could win on it's own by going after the immigrants themselves.

I appreciate your high moral code. I wish you would use your head a little more and realize that a high moral code can be used against you. Case in point, if you tell someone you will do anything to avoid a fight, then your opponent knows this, and will fucking own you. sure, it is morally the high ground to walk away from the fight, but you are going to get owned for the rest of your life by anyone that knows your "code".
Try combining your morals with a pair of balls

Where did Juan say anything about "not fighting"? He said we need to find an option that actually is EFFECTIVE.

[DangerBoy]

so the ideal of what's written on the Statue of Liberty now trumps what's actually codified in our immigration laws

[Phatscotty]

so the ideal of what's written on the Statue of Liberty now trumps what's actually codified in our immigration laws

yes I was going to go that route. we fill gaps

[deronimo]

However, Juan claimed that it was due to brown skin and showing no ID. That is nowhere in the Arizona bill. That shows me that he didn't read the bill and is just projecting what he wants into his argument.

No that's not what I meant!!! I was gunning more for; Having Brown Skin and having no ID. If you are not carrying an ID and get questioned if you are an Illegal, then they can detain you as an illegal immigrant more simply based on your skin color. I'm still reading the bill, but I will be done shortly. Anyway, player has answered pretty much as I would have anyway, so I defer to her.

OK, I can see your point although I disagree with it. I disagree with your reasoning behind the Statue of Liberty thing as well, but I respect that you hold that up in such high esteem. No, I really do think that's cool of you to post that.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is my logic.



You want to stand against the USA's borders? At least face us and fight us for it, instead of playing cowardly race games.

Yes, except you seem to think Canada is part of "ours". They are the same color and you don't have a "not yours" there.

This is not about borders. It never was. Its about money and jobs. So far, a LOT of people here in the US have benefitted heavily from having illegal workers here. Those who complain the most are not the business owners, the "movers and shakers", they are people who think that their jobs are being threatened.

They are half right. Jobs are being threatened, but it is not because some hard-working Mexicans want to come here and take jobs citizens won't take.

[silvanricky]

This land is my land, it isn't your land
I got a shotgun, and you don't got none
If you don't get off, I'll blow your head off
This land was made just for me

Everybody sing along!!

[PLAYER57832]

This is simply not born up by the evidence.

yes it is. Illegal immigrants by their very definition are illegals. They are breaking the law. Therefore, it's a 100% crime rate.

And what problem does that particular crime cause? Truly, what problem?

[Borderdawg]

This is simply not born up by the evidence.

yes it is. Illegal immigrants by their very definition are illegals. They are breaking the law. Therefore, it's a 100% crime rate.

And what problem does that particular crime cause? Truly, what problem?

How about the BILLIONS of dollars remitted to their home countries by illegals every year? That is lost revenue to local businesses. How about the MILLIONS of dollars spent to educate the children of illegals? That is money taken from OUR pockets, money that should be spent on OUR children. How about the MILLIONS of dollars lost to hospitals because illegals clog the emergency rooms for minor bullshit? It's theft, any way you look at it.

[Phatscotty]

Here is my logic.



You want to stand against the USA's borders? At least face us and fight us for it, instead of playing cowardly race games.

This is not about borders. It never was. Its about money and jobs. So far, a LOT of people here in the US have benefitted heavily from having illegal workers here. Those who complain the most are not the business owners, the "movers and shakers", they are people who think that their jobs are being threatened.

They are half right. Jobs are being threatened, but it is not because some hard-working Mexicans want to come here and take jobs citizens won't take.

It's about borders to me and millions of other citizens. I dont care if you think it isnt. again, I understand you need this to be racial. I understand...

[PLAYER57832]

This is simply not born up by the evidence.

yes it is. Illegal immigrants by their very definition are illegals. They are breaking the law. Therefore, it's a 100% crime rate.

And what problem does that particular crime cause? Truly, what problem?

How about the BILLIONS of dollars remitted to their home countries by illegals every year? That is lost revenue to local businesses. How about the MILLIONS of dollars spent to educate the children of illegals? That is money taken from OUR pockets, money that should be spent on OUR children. How about the MILLIONS of dollars lost to hospitals because illegals clog the emergency rooms for minor bullshit? It's theft, any way you look at it.

Money, again, not violance.

I agree the economics is an issue.
I fail to see why Mexicans sending money home is more of an issue than any other group of immigrants doing the same. However, our schools and hospitals are underfunded. Why? BECAUSE EMPLOYERS DON"T WANT TO PAY THE TAXES.

By hiring illegal immigrants they skip that part, but who is the real criminal, who is causing the real harm? The worker who is doing a job, sending some money home, but also spending money here OR the employer who decides to put more money in his pocket and stiff the rest of us. THAT isn't even just about illegal workers, either. Any employer who doesn't pay workers reasonably is stiffing the rest of us.

[Phatscotty]

you can justify anything can't you? unbelievable.

[Borderdawg]

you can justify anything can't you? unbelievable.

It must be the oxygen deprivation. You know, from having her head so far up her backside!! I swear, she gets more obtuse by the day!

[BigBallinStalin]

If Mexican illegals crossing our border isn't harming anyone, then by what right does Mexico have to detain, arrest, and deport Central Americans who enter their southern border illegally?

Personally I don't care what the Mexican government's stance is; I'm an American. And I hold firmly to very ideal that was put into words and placed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty:
\
I am aware that the statue points towards Europe only but it was a gift from France....

Furthermore: As an American, I hold myself to a high moral code. I don't believe for one second that having illegal immigrants here is good for our $$$. But even if we deport everyone, will that solve the problems? Wont they just cross over again and get hired somewhere? I don't see why we can't see another option presented (that's directed at the Conservatives that shouted down G.H.W. Bush's plan). Detaining someone because they may be illegal doesn't seem sensible or practical to me. And this isn't a fight Arizona could win on it's own by going after the immigrants themselves.

With more arrests and deportations, that would require more of those privately owned prisons. One can see the incentive for a few politicians/businessmen to push this law into being. In the meantime, they sugar coat it with some rubbish that gets readily gobbled up and regurgitated from the mainstream media into the mouths of the American masses.

[Phatscotty]

If Mexican illegals crossing our border isn't harming anyone, then by what right does Mexico have to detain, arrest, and deport Central Americans who enter their southern border illegally?

Personally I don't care what the Mexican government's stance is; I'm an American. And I hold firmly to very ideal that was put into words and placed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty:
\
I am aware that the statue points towards Europe only but it was a gift from France....

Furthermore: As an American, I hold myself to a high moral code. I don't believe for one second that having illegal immigrants here is good for our $$$. But even if we deport everyone, will that solve the problems? Wont they just cross over again and get hired somewhere? I don't see why we can't see another option presented (that's directed at the Conservatives that shouted down G.H.W. Bush's plan). Detaining someone because they may be illegal doesn't seem sensible or practical to me. And this isn't a fight Arizona could win on it's own by going after the immigrants themselves.

With more arrests and deportations, that would require more of those privately owned prisons. One can see the incentive for a few politicians/businessmen to push this law into being. In the meantime, they sugar coat it with some rubbish that gets readily gobbled up and regurgitated from the mainstream media into the mouths of the American masses.

Is that like an NWO thing?