Immigration law

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

How convenient it must be to forget history so you can make your points and support your positions. Who had that land taken from them in the first place?

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

Throughout history, lands have been occupied and overrun by invading populations. Modern humans displaced the Neanderthals in Europe. That's just the way things are. However, it is usually the result of weakness on the part of residents that allow the invaders to succeed.
The situation here is somewhat different but the the effects may be the same. A Latin culture will become predominant while the traditional northern European culture will fade away. Its happening already just look at the ethnic population in the schools. Here in S. Calif. its at least 80% Hispanic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If your point is that we should return the US to the Indians I don't think that discussion will go very far.

This is a severe breach of US sovereignty pure and simple.

Actually, my point was general and my specific reference was not to the Indians but to Texas having been part of Mexico. But my real question is whether you are willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Actually, my point was general and my specific reference was not to the Indians but to Texas having been part of Mexico. But my real question is whether you are willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

This land that is now under the control of mexican gangs and drug lords is in Arizona, not Texas. Either way, the land is now supposed to be part of the US because of the Mexican American war of 1847 and the following Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

But your point that vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America sounds fascinating. Please tell me more.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This land that is now under the control of mexican gangs and drug lords is in Arizona, not Texas. Either way, the land is now supposed to be part of the US because of the Mexican American war of 1847 and the following Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo.

But your point that vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America sounds fascinating. Please tell me more.

Once again, I must point out that you put words in my mouth. I defy you to show where I made the point that "vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America."

This is not the first time in this thread that you put words in my mouth. It is a classic -- and wholly discredited approach in an argument: the logical fallacy of the "strawman attack." Put words in your opponent's mouth and then either attack the resulting position, while simultaneously evading the real point made by your opponent, or see if you can bait your opponent into continuing down the falsely created discussion path.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Once again, I must point out that you put words in my mouth. I defy you to show where I made the point that "vexing social problems excuses gangs and drug lords from another country for running around free in America."

This is not the first time in this thread that you put words in my mouth. It is a classic -- and wholly discredited approach in an argument: the logical fallacy of the "strawman attack." Put words in your opponent's mouth and then either attack the resulting position, while simultaneously evading the real point made by your opponent, or see if you can bait your opponent into continuing down the falsely created discussion path.

It's not an intentional strawman argument. I think my problem is I assumed you had a point to make in post 63. I assumed your remark was disagreement in what I had said which I took as agreement with the opposite of what I said. Then you brought up the vexing social problems, which I assumed you thought relevant to this thread and... I assumed, related to what I thought was your disagreement.

Back to your real question: Whether I am willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

Tell me what the vexing social problem is and maybe I can answer your question.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It's not an intentional strawman argument. I think my problem is I assumed you had a point to make in post 63. I assumed your remark was disagreement in what I had said which I took as agreement with the opposite of what I said. Then you brought up the vexing social problems, which I assumed you thought relevant to this thread and... I assumed, related to what I thought was your disagreement.

Back to your real question: Whether I am willing and able to think beyond simplistic reaction to a broader picture of the reality of the world and how to solve vexing social problems.

Tell me what the vexing social problem is and maybe I can answer your question.

Well, I guess the first paragraph of your quoted post above is the equivalent of "I'm sorry I put words in your mouth," so although those words don't appear, I'll assume you are practicing to run for office and this is the kind of apology that will be expected if you say something you wish you could take back afterwards.

The vexing social problems are poverty and immigration. The overwhelming majority of undocumented workers who come here from Mexico do so because they are dirt poor and there is so little hope and opportunity in their home country to lift themselves out of poverty. That is why there is so huge a business in individual sending of money from the United States to Mexico: undocumented workers here are supporting their families back home. In many other cases, entire families come here -- for the same reason. This primary motivating factor for crossing our southern border is undeniable, and anyone who denies it -- whatever her or his political perspective -- cannot be taken seriously.

I could write a long treatise on why Mexico is so poor, or -- more accurately -- why so many Mexicans are so poor (the nation itself is quite rich with natural resources). Suffice it to say here, in the interest of brevity, that the hand of the United States, over well more than a century of direct and indirect intervention, is all over today's Mexican reality.

The question of "illegal immigration" poses a question of whether the United States wants to remain the beacon to the world it has always purported to be. The voices of reaction simplistically speak of militarizing the border, throwing people out, breaking up families, and so on. Many of these immigrants are hardworking people who contribute to the economy in a number of ways. Again, anyone who denies this fact cannot be taken seriously.

The United States loses its purported moral authority whenever we paint a problem with so broad a brush as to equate, either implicitly or explicitly, everyone in a particular group with the heinous actions of a few. Tracy, you do this implictly with your multiple posts equating Mexican workers and Mexican drug runners, Mexican drug cartel members, Mexican criminals engaged in the drug wars.

The reaction that is inherent in ridiculous statements such as Obama is "trying to change the demographics of the country" and "if drug lords get through as well, who cares right?" is just plain unserious. Of course, I am not you, but I would be embarrassed to make such statements. They do not suggest that you want to have a thoughtful discussion about how to solve problems, but that you are a reactionary (and I mean that in the dictionary definition, not as a slur against conservatives). I mean, really, it is almost as ridiculous as the view that Obama wasn't born in the United States.

[GRH]

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots ? the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. ? for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona ? and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution ? to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists ? things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.

But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

The question is whether that would violate the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship.

But that was 1868. Today, Pearce says the 14th Amendment has been "hijacked" by illegal immigrants. "They use it as a wedge," Pearce says. "This is an orchestrated effort by them to come here and have children to gain access to the great welfare state we've created." Pearce says he is aware of the constitutional issues involved with the bill and vows to introduce it nevertheless. "We will write it right." He and other Republicans in the red state Arizona point to popular sympathy: 58% of Americans polled by Rasmussen think illegal immigrants whose children are born here should not receive citizenship; support for that stance is 76% among Republicans.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...#ixzz0qgECrHZS

I saw this posted at another forum I visit. Personally, I'm a BIG fan of amending the Constitution so that citizenship is conferred by birth to citizens of America and not by birth on American soil.

These "anchor babies" allow many illegal immigrants to stay here illegally and suck at the welfare tit. If we can't amend the Constitution to do away with "birth by soil" than I propose that we make it VERY unattractive for these "citizen babies." In short, the legal citizen child of illegal immigrants shall be IMMEDIATELY confiscated as a ward of the state and treated as a ward until they reach 18. The illegal parents lose ALL custody rights and are immediately deported back to their country of origin.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

The vexing social problems are poverty and immigration. The overwhelming majority of undocumented workers who come here from Mexico do so because they are dirt poor and there is so little hope and opportunity in their home country to lift themselves out of poverty. That is why there is so huge a business in individual sending of money from the United States to Mexico: undocumented workers here are supporting their families back home. In many other cases, entire families come here -- for the same reason. This primary motivating factor for crossing our southern border is undeniable, and anyone who denies it -- whatever her or his political perspective -- cannot be taken seriously.

Ahh there's where I got confused. When I was talking about drug lords and gangs in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge you were talking about undocumented workers aka illegal immigrants. How silly of me, I should have known better. Yes, we all know that's why the every day run of the mill illegal immigrant are here. Not that that means we shouldn't try and keep illegal immigrants out. What does any of this have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Originally Posted by smc

I could write a long treatise on why Mexico is so poor, or -- more accurately -- why so many Mexicans are so poor (the nation itself is quite rich with natural resources). Suffice it to say here, in the interest of brevity, that the hand of the United States, over well more than a century of direct and indirect intervention, is all over today's Mexican reality.

Classic blame America rhetoric. With all of Mexico's abundant natural resources, the Mexican government had nothing to do with their poverty??

Originally Posted by smc

The question of "illegal immigration" poses a question of whether the United States wants to remain the beacon to the world it has always purported to be. The voices of reaction simplistically speak of militarizing the border, throwing people out, breaking up families, and so on. Many of these immigrants are hardworking people who contribute to the economy in a number of ways. Again, anyone who denies this fact cannot be taken seriously.

Yes, we have a system for bringing in LEGAL immigrants. And we would probably be able to bring in a lot more LEGAL immigrants if we weren't so overrun with illegal immigrants.

Originally Posted by smc

The reaction that is inherent in ridiculous statements such as Obama is "trying to change the demographics of the country".

I hope that is a ridiculous statement. The fact that Obama wanted to move the US Census under control of the White House and have it run by Acorn workers shouldn't lead one to think that. The fact that Obama canceled construction of a fence in Arizona despite the millions of illegals coming in there shouldn't lead one to think he's trying to change the demographics. The fact that he is asking the supreme court to over turn a state's ability to punish businesses who hire illegals shouldn't lead one to think that either.

That's why I'm bringing these things up here in this thread. Because looking at only his actions without hearing any of his reasoning, without giving him the benefit of the doubt, I think the only logical conclusion of his actions alone, is that he's trying to change the demographics of America. But I'm not hearing his reasons. And it's getting harder and harder to give him the benefit of the doubt when he consistently comes down on the side of letting illegals live and work here. So enlighten me. Have you or anyone else heard his reasons?

Originally Posted by smc

I mean, really, it is almost as ridiculous as the view that Obama wasn't born in the United States.

Uh, was that mentioned in this thread?