Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. I am a non-conformist. This basically means, that when I consider what our policies ought to be, I try not to use use the current law as my starting point if I have reason to suspect that it may be based on biased opinions. This is very intentional. I believe that progress in a society requires a few individuals to think outside the box and deliberately ignore the majority opinion. I am not ashamed to be one. Yes, I do try to wipe the mental slate clean and eliminate much of my previous knowledge/assumptions and maybe I do seem to be pretending to not know some things that are "common sense". This is almost an inevitable result of my belief that someone has to discard prior beliefs and be creative and even eccentric. The "role" of most others is of course to screen and moderate the non-conformists' opinions. It is my sincere hope that I can contribute views which are very creative in light of my willingness to consider highly unconventional views, even if they are frowned upon, but that myself and others can screen the ideas to make sure people like me aren't just nuts and don't destroy society. We need conformists and non-conformists both - without nonconformists, there would be no progress, and without conformists, emotionally heated individuals would try too hard to force their views down society's throat. I think we all have something to contribute!
2. I agree that we cannot let in all 150 million at once, so I do support checking papers before boarding flights and I even might support efforts to crack down on the Mexican border, though not necessarily as extreme as Trump's idea. However this does NOT mean that immigrants who DO make it here should be treated as anything other than human beings with dignity. For further clarification, I am NOT saying that I support open borders or a total removal of restrictions on immigrants, and I am NOT saying that the rules themselves are dehumanizing. I should have made this point clear in OP, my fault for not doing so. What I am saying is that it is the reasoning behind the rules, not the rules themselves, that indicate a prejudicial attitude towards immigrants. But once we admit this, we should re-interpret the rules as dehumanizing, even though in isolation they could be taken as reasonable, because they are in practice (often, not always) motivated by prejudice.
When you mix legal and illegals, you are insulting law abiding legal immigrants who follow the rules.
Legal immigration process cannot be streamlined because of liberals like you.
This is essentially just a political correctness argument. I am sorry, but if we avoid all views simply because some sensitive individuals might be insulted, a lot of progress might never happen. There was once a time when it was insulting for women to demand suffrage. And back then you could have argued that the "war on misogyny" was an insult to men and made it difficult to conduct elections as normal without a protest. Yet that argument would have been so incredibly wrong.
Really? Who is it picking most of the veggies and fruits in California's Great Valley? I've been there and observed, and it pretty clearly was mostly Mexicans, and based on their living conditions they were transients, so probably heavily illegal.
That's why there is a specific type of work visa for seasonal workers.
Law abiding Mexicans who want to work legally face the competition from illegal Mexicans.
Enforcing the immigration law is fair to Mexicans who work legally on the visa. If the current visa program cannot address the shortage of labor, the government can work out a better visa program, streamlining the process for legal foreign workers.
This is essentially just a political correctness argument. I am sorry, but if we avoid all views simply because some sensitive individuals might be insulted, a lot of progress might never happen. There was once a time when it was insulting for women to demand suffrage.
It's okay to insult citizens, it's okay to insult foreigners who want to come to the US legally.
It has nothing to do with being spoiled. It is simply an illustrative counterexample to the argument that the prohibited activities encourage unemployment-producing immigration. I made plenty of other points in OP, this particular point I did repeat and harp on, but only because I was responding to multiple posters who made the unemployment argument over and over.
Well there isn't a noteworthy problem with unemployment among legal immigrants. And why in the world would you expect the spouse of someone on a student visa to be entitled to start a business to employ illegal immigrants? It isn't even logical.
I believe part of the difficulty with the topic of immigration (in general) is that it can be hard to feel empathy for immigrants. Not sympathy, but empathy in the sense of putting ourselves in their shoes.
This short film appeared on PBS last night, and it really makes you realize what the people fleeing the middle east are going through on a personal level. I would caution that some people may find it too upsetting to watch, but its extremely powerful if you are open to being moved on an emotional level.
I believe part of the difficulty with the topic of immigration (in general) is that it can be hard to feel empathy for immigrants. Not sympathy, but empathy in the sense of putting ourselves in their shoes.
This short film appeared on PBS last night, and it really makes you realize what the people fleeing the middle east are going through on a personal level. I would caution that some people may find it too upsetting to watch, but its extremely powerful if you are open to being moved on an emotional level.
The point is more than that. It is that the jobs argument is insufficient to justify the degree and breadth with which immigration is restricted in the U.S.
Have you considered taking your argument to DHS, your state representatives, Immigration? We as citizens cannot change laws on the books; besides, we should have enforced our immigration laws many years ago or we wouldn't be in this mess.
Why don't these "immigrants" put their energy toward improving their own countries? We cannot take care of the rest of the world. Period.
BTW, English is the international language used for business. And it's the official language of California.
We are not here to bend over backwards or cater to those who come here from another country/culture.
I am talking about all immigrants collectively. Legal and illegal.
Let me make an analogy. Imagine, hypothetically, that the drinking age had been raised to 47. There were many sources which looked at the health outcomes of legal drinking vs. "illegal drinking", where "illegal" drinking included both drinking under age 47 and drinking beverages that were brewed, distilled, or sold illegally ("moonshine"). The sources all said that illegal drinking carries much higher risks of causing adverse health outcomes than legal drinking. Because of this, it would be argued that there is no Prohibition; rather, we limit drinking to only "legal" drinking and ban "illegal drinking".
Do you see what the problem is in this scenario? The problem is that by insisting on the division between legal and illegal, you are lumping together all the cases that are in violation of the rules set by the government, and by so doing, you make the legitimacy of the cutoff points or criteria in the law almost uncritiqueable.
For this reason, I do not, and will not, specify "legal" or "illegal" immigrants, because this artificially frames the discussion in a way that essentially pre-supposes the legitimacy of current legal criteria, and thus amounts to circular reasoning.
So you're saying that laws don't apply. Noted.
I'll be over later to come into your home and take what I want. Don't bother calling the cops, since your definition of stealing pre-supposes the legitimacy of current legal criteria.
I am talking about all immigrants collectively. Legal and illegal.
Let me make an analogy. Imagine, hypothetically, that the drinking age had been raised to 47. There were many sources which looked at the health outcomes of legal drinking vs. "illegal drinking", where "illegal" drinking included both drinking under age 47 and drinking beverages that were brewed, distilled, or sold illegally ("moonshine"). The sources all said that illegal drinking carries much higher risks of causing adverse health outcomes than legal drinking. Because of this, it would be argued that there is no Prohibition; rather, we limit drinking to only "legal" drinking and ban "illegal drinking".
Do you see what the problem is in this scenario? The problem is that by insisting on the division between legal and illegal, you are lumping together all the cases that are in violation of the rules set by the government, and by so doing, you make the legitimacy of the cutoff points or criteria in the law almost uncritiqueable.
For this reason, I do not, and will not, specify "legal" or "illegal" immigrants, because this artificially frames the discussion in a way that essentially pre-supposes the legitimacy of current legal criteria, and thus amounts to circular reasoning.
Your analogy is flawed.
A better one would be to stick with the moonshine analogy. By not distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants, you are advocating letting everyone in. Criminals running from the law in their own countries, disease-carriers, people who have previously been deported, etc.
This is akin to lumping all alcohol together and saying you don't want to discriminate against alcohol that was brewed out in the woods somewhere and is potentially lethal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
