Immigration law

[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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

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.

Current efforts to abolish birthright citizenship in the United States are as much folly as they have been in the past. More important, they are yet another example of how quick so many are to jump to facile solutions that are based on emotional reactions to difficult issues, but that fail to address the fundamental, underlying issues behind complex social problems.

The most obvious problem with what GRH proposes is that it would punish children, for 18 years, for the actions of their parents. Think about it: independent of the merit of your proposal, children -- completely innocent in that they were not the perpetrators of the violation of the law -- would be turned into victims. You can argue that they are being victimized by their irresponsible parents, but do you want to have, on your hands, the responsibility for having taken them from mom and dad, having them be raised in the tenuous uncertainty of being a ward of the state (and thus subject to all the exigencies that affect state-run programs), and so on?

The rest of my argument, I want to make clear, is general about the proposal. I do not believe that GRH has specifically stated any of these things, only that the proposal -- and the movement against birthright citizenship provided by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- has these elements.

So, to begin, let's debunk any notion that this represents a "simple reform" -- as George Will claimed in a Washington Post op-ed some time ago on the subject. It is much, much more, and would have significant consequences for the United States. For instance, it would place a burden on every American, who would potentially have to document her or his own claim to citizenship. There is considerable research to suggest that it would, in fact, increase the number of stateless individuals without legal status who reside in the United States. Where would these people be deported to, if caught? What happens when countries of the world say that they are unwilling to accept deportees from the United States, because they are not citizens of the country to which the United States wants to send them? Prisons? Workhouses? Detention camps?

The idea that repealing the 14th Amendment is a cure to a broken immigration system is folly. It is yet another reaction, built on emotion by those who seem unwilling to have a complex discussion about a complex problem that transcends the relatively straightforward issue of citizenship. It ignores the root causes of our immigration problems (see my posts earlier). Doctors will tell you that treatment is infinitely more effective when you can treat the disease itself, not the symptoms. The plethora of undocumented immigrants in our country is a symptom, not the disease.

The calls for repeal of the 14th Amendment have a long history in nativism and racism. I am not accusing anyone on this forum who supports the repeal as nativists or racists. Nevertheless, it is instructive to look at the history of the arguments over the period since Reconstruction, when the 14th Amendment was enacted. Studying this history, and the arguments on both sides, is quite revealing. It is unfortunate when those who support repeal today fail to dissociate themselves explicitly from the tradition of this movement, which is a very ugly one indeed.

[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?

[Rachel]

Darn Tracy beat me to all the good comebacks! lol But lets call a Spade a Spade shall we SMC? They arent "undocumented workers" or any of the other politically correct niceties. They are Illegal Aliens. They are criminals.They didnt immigrate here. They entered the Country illegally. And they are a drain to our society not contributors. From all the free charity healthcare they get to local cities building shelters in muster zones. They dont pay taxes yet their children attend our schools.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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?

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

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.

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?

Uh, was that mentioned in this thread?

Many posts ago, Tracy, I suggested that you might be a "master sophist" and encouraged you to look up the word. I don't suspect you did.

In ancient Greece, there was a class of teachers who dealt with philosophy, rhetoric, and politics, and who mastered the "art" of using fallacious but plausible reasoning.

I grow exhausted by your sophistry. You either pretend not to understand how argument works or really do not, but in either case you keep ascribing either explicit or implicit statements or intents to your opponent. Any mention of anything in the argument by your opponent is subjected to the scrutiny of whether it was mentioned previously (this is only relevant if someone actually says you said something and then takes it on; otherwise, in argument one certainly has the right to raise analogous statements, references, etc., so long as it is done fairly). You change the goalposts of the discussion, and you bring in early referents as if they were the most recent subjects of the rhetoric.

I am so exhausted by having to spend time discussing how you argue, rather than only the substance of your points. Were you a student in my university rhetoric class, I would put you on "probation" and get you some tutoring, and that would be irrespective of your positions on any subject. It would be about how to argue.

You can read what I wrote just above and declare victory if you wish, but remember that there are many kinds of victories. If you simply exhaust your opponent with sophistry, as the early Sophists learned, yours may indeed be a Pyrrhic victory for your position in the end.