The nation’s cruelest immigration law - new york times editorial (illegal, crimes)

[chicagonut]

I wonder when the pro-illegal mantra will stop? When will they all catch on to the fact that these same old arguments don't hold water anymore? For example, "illegals are doing jobs that Americans won't do". My all time favorite is the crop picking one when there are only 3% of illegals picking crops and there are unlimited H-2A visas legal immigrant crop pickers.

[rhymetime]

When will the "unlimited H-2A visas" mantra stop?

[Liquid Reigns]

Originally Posted by rhymetime

Really? No. Perhaps you should go look that word up. When people say "children of illegals should not be citizens," or "we should end wet foot/dry foot" or even "we should deport all illegals" they are making normative arguments whether they know it or not.

If everyone were making positive arguments there wouldn't be much to discuss. There is very, very little confusion about what the status quo is (though occasionally they are interesting only because you show how little understanding you have of how things actually are, eg:

Births by U.S. visitors: A real issue?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/20411108-post229.html

etc)

All those phrases have would or should in them, something was missing in your comments to make them normative, (hint: maybe you should quit trying to cover your @ss when you are wrong, your arguments are in no way superior even though you somehow think your intelligence is)

Wow, look at you, reverting back to other topic comments that you somehow believe you are correct on. Here let me try:

Originally Posted by rhymetime

Likewise, when I hire someone who happens to have been born over on the wrong side of an imaginary line, I'm not harming anyone else. Nobody else owns that job.

Originally Posted by rhymetime

It's a normative statement.

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

It would have been "normative" had you worded it differently.

Seems there is a word missing from your statement that would have made it "normative" vs it being "positive".

[Liquid Reigns]

Originally Posted by rhymetime

When will the "unlimited H-2A visas" mantra stop?

Probably when the farmers begin using it as they should have from the beginning.

[chicagonut]

I find it ironic that the pro-illegals argue that we should change our immigration laws but it is somehow racist for us to want to change birthright citizenship and the wet foot/dry foot policy. Pot, kettle, black.

[rhymetime]

Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns

Seems there is a word missing from your statement that would have made it "normative" vs it being "positive".

Sorry, I assumed it was pretty obvious and readers with IQs above, say, 85 or so could figure out what I'm doing there. You're acting like there's some sort of UNDERHANDED SUBTERFUGE and there's not. You're either just incredibly bad at reading comprehension or you're just arguing in bad faith.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt so I'm assuming you're not too stupid to figure this out.

[rhymetime]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

I find it ironic that the pro-illegals argue that we should change our immigration laws but it is somehow racist for us to want to change birthright citizenship and the wet foot/dry foot policy. Pot, kettle, black.

Yes, it's totally ironic that people who would argue for more freedom would be against a policy intended to solidify an entitled class and keep outsiders shut out. As in, not ironic at all.

Hint: we're not arguing to change immigration laws just for the sake of changing things. If that were the case, THEN I would agree that resisting change elsewhere would be a pot/kettle situation. But that's not the case at all.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

Do you think these laws are cruel?

If not what are other alternatives?

The fundimental issue is criminal immigration. We have a large number of people that are not citizens or legal residents of this country. They choose to commit an illegal act by violating our immigaration laws. The other laws (targeting employers or others that aid or harbor criminal aliens) are no different than any other laws that serve to punish, and thereby deter, those that aid criminals. If we were discussing other crimes (rape, murder, robbery), would there be sympathy for those that aided and abetted the criminal? Why do some feel that we must reward those criminals that violate our borders and laws? Why would we not punish those that aid them in doing so?

To equate these criminals with blacks during the civil rights era is an insult to blacks. They were discriminated against because of their race, and Jim Crow laws targetted them simply for being black. The laws in question in the OP target CRIMINALS, those that have knowingly and willingly violated the law. Those that equate all blacks to criminals have a warped sense of justice.

[rhymetime]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

The fundimental issue is criminal immigration. We have a large number of people that are not citizens or legal residents of this country. They choose to commit an illegal act by violating our immigaration laws. The other laws (targeting employers or others that aid or harbor criminal aliens) are no different than any other laws that serve to punish, and thereby deter, those that aid criminals. If we were discussing other crimes (rape, murder, robbery), would there be sympathy for those that aided and abetted the criminal? Why do some feel that we must reward those criminals that violate our borders and laws?

To equate these criminals with blacks during the civil rights era is an insult to blacks. They were discriminated against because of their race, and Jim Crow laws targetted them simply for being black. The laws in question in the OP target CRIMINALS, those that have knowingly and willingly violated the law. Those that equate all blacks to criminals have a warped sense of justice.

You're begging the question. You don't question the laws that MAKE them criminals, you just accept those as unchangeable axioms. But that's the entire crux of the matter.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by rhymetime

You're begging the question. You don't question the laws that MAKE them criminals, you just accept those as unchangeable axioms. But that's the entire crux of the matter.

So are we getting to the crux of your arguement? That we should have no control over our borders? No decision in who comes into this country? Do you offer the same courtsey on your property? Do you leave your doors open for every random person walking by? I'm sure there are people that would like your warm bed to sleep in. Do you encourage them to take your property, while you get nothing in return? Once these people are in your home, do you offer to feed them, educate them and pay their medical expenses, while they sit on your couch and watch your TV? If you as an individual aren't willling to do this, why would we as a country?

If people are willing to violate our immigration laws, why would anyone expect them to have any more respect for any of our other laws?