Immigration law

[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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

LOL keep your red herrings to yourself. I believe the technical term for your type of response is a DODGE. You didn't answer any of my questions.

What does

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

have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Did the actions and policies of the Mexican government have nothing to do with the country's poverty??

And did anyone in this thread accuse Obama of not being born in the US?

I only ask because if you wouldn't want someone to

Originally Posted by smc

bring in early referents as if they were the most recent subjects of the rhetoric.

you probably wouldn't want someone to refer to something that wasn't even said.

Originally Posted by randolph

Tracy, you are absolutely right, they are illegal aliens. You are wrong about the taxes.

Thanks, but Rachel wrote that Although I doubt income tax and SS is deducted from their pay checks. They don't have SS numbers and companies usually don't report their illegal workers.

Originally Posted by randolph

My agricultural company could not have survived without these hardworking guys from Mexico and Guatemala willing to work nine hours a day six days a week for a modest wage.
We cannot stop them from coming up here. What needs to be done is once they have a job, give them a work permit that allows them to legally travel back and forth to Mexico so they can leave their families there where it is much cheaper for them to live.

I think the work permit is a slippery slop to amnesty or will lead to problems with 3rd class citizens.

Mexicans are hard workers. But if there weren't illegals here the hard work would still get done. It would have to or else we wouldn't be too good to do the work. Our society would fall apart. We would be poor, and then willing to do the hard work. I don't want this to come back and bite us in the butt like slavery did. People used the same arguments about slaves. "They do the work no one else will do".

Well it's time we all do the hard work.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

LOL keep your red herrings to yourself. I believe the technical term for your type of response is a DODGE. You didn't answer any of my questions.

What does

have to do with closing down Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to Americans?

Did the actions and policies of the Mexican government have nothing to do with the country's poverty??

And did anyone in this thread accuse Obama of not being born in the US?

I only ask because if you wouldn't want someone to you probably wouldn't want someone to refer to something that wasn't even said.

How convenient for you to have come up with the idea of the dodge. It allows you to avoid the issues of your fallacious way or arguing that I've raised. So, anyone who reads from the beginning might not realize that you are, in fact, the dodger.

Be that as it may, your questions:

Buenos Aires -- what does this have to do with anything? You raised it in a post recently with no connection to anything. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a rhetorical device, inexplicable as it may be. Instead, should I point out that you are now guilty of bringing things up no one ever spoke of before in the thread (something you seem to feel is universally invalid)?

Mexican government -- if you had read my previous posts fully (complete reading does not seem to be part of your M.O. in this discussion), you would see that I already ascribed to the Mexican government blame. I also pinned the blame on the U.S. government for propping up a bad Mexican government.

Obama's birth -- here's where you illustrate that you don't fully read. I wrote: "I mean, really, it is almost as ridiculous as the view that Obama wasn't born in the United States." In other words, I used it to illustrate another point. I didn't ascribe the view to you. I didn't put words in your mouth. I didn't say anyone had said this. I used it to illustrate my point.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

How convenient for you to have come up with the idea of the dodge. It allows you to avoid the issues of your fallacious way or arguing that I've raised. So, anyone who reads from the beginning might not realize that you are, in fact, the dodger.

I'm dodging because I didn't respond to your dodge? Just stay on the subject.

Originally Posted by smc

Buenos Aires -- what does this have to do with anything? You raised it in a post recently with no connection to anything. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a rhetorical device, inexplicable as it may be.

"if you had read my previous posts fully (complete reading does not seem to be part of your M.O. in this discussion)" I brought it up because it was news that broke that day relevant to illegal immigrants in Arizona. I posted a link to the news story as well.

Originally Posted by smc

Mexican government -- if you had read my previous posts fully (complete reading does not seem to be part of your M.O. in this discussion), you would see that I already ascribed to the Mexican government blame. I also pinned the blame on the U.S. government for propping up a bad Mexican government.

I'm glad to see you give the Mexican govt the blame. I still don't see it above though.

And back to the other subject that you dodged with the fallacy of appeal to ridicule:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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?

[randolph]

Tracy- "Thanks, but Rachel wrote that Although I doubt income tax and SS is deducted from their pay checks. They don't have SS numbers and companies usually don't report their illegal workers."

Sorry Tracy, you are wrong there. Most "illegals" have documents (possibly fake) that appear genuine. The employer has no available means to determine authenticity and is not required to investigate. The forms that are filled out when they are hired require several forms of ID. SS and IRS are deducted from their paychecks. I know because I signed the checks. The one case where SS Admin. questioned one of our employees SS, it turns out he was legal and some one had stolen his SS.
Since the funds, SS and IRS, deducted from "illegal" workers checks, end up not being "claimed" by the worker, the money is gravy for the government. Neither the SS Admin or the IRS ever checked the legality of our workers.

[ila]

This thread has deteriorated into a ?he said, she said, they said, we said? discussion. It?s time to get it back on track.

Since the humans first appeared on Earth there has been a constant movement from one place to another. That is how the complete globe has become populated. And no, Randolph, there is no proof that Cro-Magnon man pushed the Neanderthals out of Europe or were even responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals.

The US is not the only country that has experienced a lot of immigration recently. All of the Americas were settled by migration, albeit a process that started during the last ice age. As well Oceania, Europe, and parts of Africa have experienced a lot of immigration.

Documentation of immigrants has only been required for within the last couple of hundred years. If one cares to go back in history the first European immigrants to the Americas did not require any kind of documentation. Nor were there any laws restricting immigration, no prerequisites, and no quotas. Illegal immigration is merely a bureaucratic invention designed to control what humans have been doing for a couple of hundred thousand years.

Now, take the discussion from this point and keep it civil.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

This thread has deteriorated into a ?he said, she said, they said, we said? discussion. It?s time to get it back on track.

Since the humans first appeared on Earth there has been a constant movement from one place to another. That is how the complete globe has become populated. And no, Randolph, there is no proof that Cro-Magnon man pushed the Neanderthals out of Europe or were even responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals.

The US is not the only country that has experienced a lot of immigration recently. All of the Americas were settled by migration, albeit a process that started during the last ice age. As well Oceania, Europe, and parts of Africa have experienced a lot of immigration.

Documentation of immigrants has only been required for within the last couple of hundred years. If one cares to go back in history the first European immigrants to the Americas did not require any kind of documentation. Nor were there any laws restricting immigration, no prerequisites, and no quotas. Illegal immigration is merely a bureaucratic invention designed to control what humans have been doing for a couple of hundred thousand years.

Now, take the discussion from this point and keep it civil.

This is from wikipedia.
Rapid extinction

Jared Diamond has suggested a scenario of violent conflict comparable to the genocides suffered by indigenous peoples in recent human history.[9] Another possibility raised by Diamond and others, paralleling colonialist history, would be a greater susceptibility on the part of the Neanderthals to pathogens introduced by Cro-Magnon man. Diamond argues that asymmetry in susceptibility to pathogens is a consequence of the difference in lifestyle.[citation needed]
[edit] Competitive replacement

Even a slight competitive advantage on the part of modern humans could account for Neanderthals' replacement by anatomically modern humans on a timescale of 10,000-20,000 years.[4]
The theory that early humans violently replaced Neanderthals was first proposed by French palaeontologist Marcellin Boule (the first person to publish an analysis of a Neanderthal) in 1912.[10]
Another supporter of competitive replacement is Jared Diamond who points out in his book The Third Chimpanzee that the genocidal replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans is similar to modern human patterns of behavior that occur whenever people with advanced technology invade the territory of less advanced people.[11]


You ignored the points I tried to make from my own experience and nit picked the Neanderthal issue. So much for staying on track.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Sorry Tracy, you are wrong there. Most "illegals" have documents (possibly fake) that appear genuine.

Well that's lovely

[Amy]

I can't help but laugh at this ridiculous american border fence.


The Romans tried something similar in my country.
20 feet high.
10 feet wide.
75 miles long.
Built of stone.
Along the tops of cliffs for half its length.
Garrisoned by 9000 soldiers.


If THAT didn't manage to stop illegal immigrants, how's a cheap fence which can be circumvented in under 30 seconds supposed to?