U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-04-2010, 12:38 AM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 875,884 times
Reputation: 227

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
You're bringing up a law from way back in the Roosevelt days and comparing it with illegal immigration today and SB1070? They aren't even remotely connected.
In both cases, a proponent could point to the lack of explicit "racial" language in the wording of the de jure law or decree to ignore the actual de facto nature and implementation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2010, 06:46 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
In both cases, a proponent could point to the lack of explicit "racial" language in the wording of the de jure law or decree to ignore the actual de facto nature and implementation.
No matter how you try to spin it SB1070 is about the right of LE to question legal status in this country only after a lawful stop and only if the person stopped can't produce valid I.D. There is no stopping of someone based on appearance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2010, 09:42 PM
 
1,031 posts, read 2,023,762 times
Reputation: 384
My parents came to this country legally, and I witnessed their struggles and eventual success in attaining citizenship. Not easy. Not cheap. And, no, my parents were not wealthy to begin with.

Those in favor of legal immigration must stand up against illegal immigration in order to preserve the institution that legal immigrants respected. And the government must stand up and honor what legal immigrants did/do. The number one way to do that is enforce rules, and not blur legal and illegal entry. They are not the same.

This is from a post of mine earlier from early '09:

What does it take to become a US Citizen?

The folks who try to come to this country legally and find it impossible aren't entitled to extra benefits to get citizenship. American citizenship is not an entitlement. Last time I checked, "I tried my best and couldn't do it under the various other legal ways and methods so I am entitled to American citizenship anyway," is not one of the reasons that America grants citizenship.

People talk about compassion and shame. I think people should feel ashamed for how they spit on the legacy of legal immigration, how millions around the world are NOT all from privileged backgrounds, yet they are able to struggle, scrimp, and save, and they DELIBERATELY -- with knowledge, forethought, and intent -- seek to go through the process legally. To earn the citizenship of this sovereign land. They realize and appreciate that the protection that our citizenship bestows is not an entitlement. Where's the appreciation for their efforts? They are equal to those of the illegals. If not superior, because of the added level of patience and, most importantly, adherence to rules. The best way to appreciate legal immigrants is to enforce the rules.

And from another (The Great Immigration Panic

To earn citizenship is to earn the protection of a sovereign's laws. Sovereigns distinguish between citizens and non-citizens with the rights they convey each. Sovereigns do not convey rights to undocumented or overstayed visa-holders the same as legal citizens. IT IS INHUMANE FOR ANY SOVEREIGN TO GIVE THE UNDOCUMENTED THE SAME RIGHTS THEY GIVE THEIR OWN CITIZENS, OR LAWFUL VISITORS. A nation's #1 priority has to be their own citizens -- protection of their rights, protection of the value of their citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2010, 09:50 PM
 
1,031 posts, read 2,023,762 times
Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marina1686 View Post
You're not understanding my point... Anyways, people from all over the world immigrate to the USA for necessity and for a better future No matter, how immigrants get here, they have the same aspirations and dreams. I just wish to have more justice in the country.
What do you mean necessity? It's not necessary for anyone to be a citizen of any specific nation. Not you, not me, not anyone. It's not necessary for me to be an American. I don't see the relevance of necessity. That implies someone can only survive in America, that they cannot survive anywhere else. With the democracy that America has spread, that is no longer true.

Where it does reach a boiling point, that is where political asylum comes in.

And, it is critical how people get here. It does matter. It reflects initial respect to the rules of the sovereign whose protection one seeks. It is not interchangeable. It is not irrelevant. Because the number one priority a sovereign nation has is over its people. Its citizens. So it is important to be legal. It is unjust and it is not compassionate to dilute a nation's protection, to not recognize the priority of its own citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 01:19 AM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 875,884 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
No matter how you try to spin it SB1070 is about the right of LE to question legal status in this country only after a lawful stop and only if the person stopped can't produce valid I.D. There is no stopping of someone based on appearance.
This is called an assertion, not an argument. That there would be a reference to the de jure text of a law rather than its de facto application is entirely obfuscatory, as I've commented, since there was nothing in Roosevelt's executive order that specifically mentioned Japanese. The age-old schism between theory and practice was at work then, as it likely will be in this case. We already have access to empirical research that indicates the ongoing usage of racial profiling by law enforcement personnel. Consider DRIVING WHILE BLACK: EFFECTS OF RACE, ETHNICITY, AND GENDER ON CITIZEN SELF-REPORTS OF TRAFFIC STOPS AND POLICE ACTIONS: "Are African-American men, compared with white men, more likely to report being stopped by police for traffic law violations? Are African-American men and Hispanic drivers less likely to report that police had a legitimate reason for the stop and less likely to report that police acted properly? This study answers these questions using citizen self-reports of their traffic stop encounters with the police. Net of other important explanatory variables, the data indicate that police make traffic stops for Driving While Black and male. In addition, African-American and Hispanic drivers are less likely to report that police had a legitimate reason for the stop and are less likely to report that police acted properly. The study also discusses the validity of citizen self-report data and outlines an agenda for future research."

When we consider the beliefs of white populists such as yourself that "Hispanics" are a hiveminded "ethnicity" collectively conspiring to function as a fifth column in order to bring about a "reconquista," a racist conspiracy theory little different than Father Charles Coughlin's ruminations about Jews, we have to incorporate an additional facet. Not only are indios stereotyped as being more crime-prone than whites, they are also stereotyped as a "national security" threat, which means that they could potentially be subject to the additional profiling that occurs on that front. That phenomenon was examined in Effects of terrorism on attitudes and ideological orientation, which states in its abstract that, "those terrorist attacks provoked changes in a reactionary and conservative direction: stronger prejudices not only against the target group (Arabs), but against another uninvolved group (Jewish); an increase in authoritarianism; stronger attachment to traditional conservative values, and a reduction in the attachment to liberal values."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabluey View Post
My parents came to this country legally, and I witnessed their struggles and eventual success in attaining citizenship. Not easy. Not cheap. And, no, my parents were not wealthy to begin with.
All of this is true of one of my parents, to stay on the anecdotal front.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabluey View Post
Those in favor of legal immigration must stand up against illegal immigration in order to preserve the institution that legal immigrants respected.
This is a very poor argument. If an institution is immoral, it ought to be dismantled regardless of its legality. Should anti-segregationist people of color have been condemned by pro-segregationist people of color because they "broke the law"? wasn't that the "institution that [they] respected"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabluey View Post
What do you mean necessity? It's not necessary for anyone to be a citizen of any specific nation. Not you, not me, not anyone. It's not necessary for me to be an American. I don't see the relevance of necessity. That implies someone can only survive in America, that they cannot survive anywhere else. With the democracy that America has spread, that is no longer true.
What's interesting is that a substantial degree of immigration has occurred specifically because of the authoritarianism and dictatorship that U.S. governments have exported, from the support of the Contras in Nicaragua and the rightist paramilitary movement in El Salvador to backing of the genocidal military ruler Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala (the CIA had removed the country's democratically elected head of state several decades earlier), and at least hundreds of thousands and perhaps up to several million refugees displaced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabluey View Post
Where it does reach a boiling point, that is where political asylum comes in.

And, it is critical how people get here. It does matter. It reflects initial respect to the rules of the sovereign whose protection one seeks. It is not interchangeable. It is not irrelevant. Because the number one priority a sovereign nation has is over its people. Its citizens. So it is important to be legal. It is unjust and it is not compassionate to dilute a nation's protection, to not recognize the priority of its own citizens.
There are no morally legitimate "sovereign nations," because all nations were established by force and tyranny, with the victims and their descendants uncompensated. This is obviously truer in some cases than others, with all the countries in the Americas founded in genocide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 06:42 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
[quote=Agnapostate;16596881]This is called an assertion, not an argument. That there would be a reference to the de jure text of a law rather than its de facto application is entirely obfuscatory, as I've commented, since there was nothing in Roosevelt's executive order that specifically mentioned Japanese. The age-old schism between theory and practice was at work then, as it likely will be in this case. We already have access to empirical research that indicates the ongoing usage of racial profiling by law enforcement personnel.

Most LE personnel are honest and don't racial profile. Shall we throw out the baby with the bathwater and not have any laws or police officers because of "some" who don't follow the rules? As has has been pointed out in here numerous times even if someone were to be racially profiled just as long as they have valid I.D. they would have nothing to fear so what is your point?

This is a very poor argument. If an institution is immoral, it ought to be dismantled regardless of its legality. Should anti-segregationist people of color have been condemned by pro-segregationist people of color because they "broke the law"? wasn't that the "institution that [they] respected"?

You are comparing illegal immigration to the Civil Rights Era now? Our black Americans were discriminted against so yes the laws were immoral but there is nothing immoral for any country to have and to enforce their immigration laws against those who have no right to be in their country. You are comparing apples to oranges now.

There are no morally legitimate "sovereign nations," because all nations were established by force and tyranny, with the victims and their descendants uncompensated. This is obviously truer in some cases than others, with all the countries in the Americas founded in genocide.

Really? Does that include Europe and the rest of the world? It should then because wars have been fought and lands have exchanged hands throughout world history. So you want to live in the past and deny every country in the world their soveirgncy today based on a past hundreds of years ago? Where do you live....in a cave?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 03:49 PM
 
Location: SELA
532 posts, read 875,884 times
Reputation: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Most LE personnel are honest and don't racial profile. Shall we throw out the baby with the bathwater and not have any laws or police officers because of "some" who don't follow the rules? As has has been pointed out in here numerous times even if someone were to be racially profiled just as long as they have valid I.D. they would have nothing to fear so what is your point?
It would be more problematic if it became a matter of systematized institutional discrimination, as opposed to a matter of prejudices on the part of individual officers. There is already mass support for that in the case of Middle Eastern men. So if the rhetoric that depicts immigration patterns as an issue of "invasion" that demands national security, I expect that the same would occur in the case of Indians. That is what historically occurred in the case of Japanese.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
You are comparing illegal immigration to the Civil Rights Era now? Our black Americans were discriminted against so yes the laws were immoral but there is nothing immoral for any country to have and to enforce their immigration laws against those who have no right to be in their country. You are comparing apples to oranges now.
The point completely flew over your head, as I expected it would. The issue is not at all the comparison of immigration laws to segregation laws except in their status as laws. To insist on the immorality of violation of laws would necessitate that you do so consistently, as in the violation of Jim Crow laws, laws against political dissidence in authoritarian countries, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Really? Does that include Europe and the rest of the world? It should then because wars have been fought and lands have exchanged hands throughout world history. So you want to live in the past and deny every country in the world their soveirgncy today based on a past hundreds of years ago? Where do you live....in a cave?
It does include every country in the world (I favor the ultimate abolition of nation-states, as an anarchist), but in some cases, the residual distributive injustice against the victims of colonialism and imperialism are more severe. For example, there is very little evidence of residual injustice against any victims of the Anglo-Saxon-Jute conquest of Britain (Ireland is a separate issue). However, there is a very clear example in South Africa, where foreign colonialist dominance over farming continues, perpetuating economic apartheid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 05:31 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
[quote=Agnapostate;16604989]It would be more problematic if it became a matter of systematized institutional discrimination, as opposed to a matter of prejudices on the part of individual officers. There is already mass support for that in the case of Middle Eastern men. So if the rhetoric that depicts immigration patterns as an issue of "invasion" that demands national security, I expect that the same would occur in the case of Indians. That is what historically occurred in the case of Japanese.

What part of this didn't you get? "As has has been pointed out in here numerous times even if someone were to be racially profiled just as long as they have valid I.D. they would have nothing to fear so what is your point"?


The point completely flew over your head, as I expected it would. The issue is not at all the comparison of immigration laws to segregation laws except in their status as laws. To insist on the immorality of violation of laws would necessitate that you do so consistently, as in the violation of Jim Crow laws, laws against political dissidence in authoritarian countries, etc.

Again, all you can do is bring up the past. No such things exist today.



It does include every country in the world (I favor the ultimate abolition of nation-states, as an anarchist), but in some cases, the residual distributive injustice against the victims of colonialism and imperialism are more severe. For example, there is very little evidence of residual injustice against any victims of the Anglo-Saxon-Jute conquest of Britain (Ireland is a separate issue). However, there is a very clear example in South Africa, where foreign colonialist dominance over farming continues, perpetuating economic apartheid.

If you don't believe that countries should have a right to soveirgn borders and immigration laws regardless of past history then I can't help you. It is what it is and a country's borders are recognized worldwide regardless of past conflicts or history. So your "opinion" on the matter doesn't mean squat.

Last edited by chicagonut; 11-10-2010 at 06:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2010, 06:13 PM
 
76 posts, read 70,302 times
Reputation: 53
you all have to play the game here that's voting and educating other people about this issue. I have a lot of friends who spent years and years through the proper channel to set foot to the US and be a legal resident. They eager to adapt, to learn and to be an American.

and of course these illegals wont do the same as we allow them to get freebies and live in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top