U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 06-28-2008, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,807,269 times
Reputation: 3028

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by amc760 View Post
Too lazy to explain that he got my intention way wrong.
Fair enough. I can respect your honestly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-30-2008, 07:09 AM
 
77 posts, read 101,165 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
Ned, c’mon let’s not play games. If you are as well-versed on the immigration debate as you would have us believe…….surely you know illegal alien apologists make a concerted effort to omit the term “illegal” from their “immigration” discourse. They do this in an attempt to justify and obfuscate their “true” agenda…….which is to ensure a steady influx of “cheap” labor for the corporate elite profiteers from whom they receive their multi-million dollar funding.

Illegal immigration, under the guise of “civil rights,” has become a lucrative enterprise for La Raza, et al., and they demonize ALL opposition as being racists, xenophobes, nativists, etc. -- and intentionally make no distinction between white supremacist individuals or organizations, and non-racist concerned U.S. citizens. Their objective is to successfully convince the masses that anti-illegal = anti-immigrant = racist; cognizant of the fact that few would choose to be considered the latter.

Whether the “agenda” of organizations are “stated” or “implicit” is of little concern to me personally; given the fact that I have not formulated my stance on illegal immigration on the tenets of these groups.

Perhaps you consider “legal” and “illegal” to be synonymous; thereby, “immigrant” would in fact suffice as being appropriate terminology for those circumventing our laws. I happen to differentiate between the two.
I don't see much of an immigration debate to be well-versed in. My interests are in history and law, so I have some fairly substantial gaps on some of the specific issues. I have a habit, though, of looking into coincidences, conspiracies, urban legends, etc., so I've come across a lot of this in the last two years. I don't give more weight to the side that makes their point by quantity of argument rather than quality of argument. This is a subjective matter, so I respect that you have found the quality of the arguments you support to be superior.

I guess I'm an "illegal alien apologist". The law, outside of immigration law, doesn't make that much of a distinction between legal and illegal aliens, compared to the distinction between citizens and aliens or the distinction between one or the other of the many other legal alien classes or length of residency. Historically, it has made less of a distinction, because there were fewer illegal aliens. I'm not talking about the 1850's or anything, but within the lifetime of most users of this forum. I've read enough of the old posts to expect most of the regulars to dismiss this point as irrelevant, but I'll stop now because it's off-topic.

"Apologists", "concerted effort", "an attempt to justify and obfuscate their 'true' agenda", "corporate elite profiteers from whom they receive their multi-million dollar funding". Are you kidding me? It's called corporate giving. It's about tax advantages, public relations, and--get this--philanthropy. Your words are anti-corporate hate speech, which is wrong because corporations are (legally) people too!

I don't believe that NCLR or SPLC have demonized all opposition as racists, xenophobes, nativists, etc.. That's not the case in the link you provided. FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA, etc. that were mentioned are "linked" to the same person, John Tanton. Those groups are the target, not all opposition. It's pretty standard guilt-by-asociation (Kenny-boy Lay or Jeremiah Wright, anyone?) stuff. Tanton is pro-zero--or negative--population growth, anti-immigration, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Latino by his own words. The groups he founded are pro-zero--or negative--population growth and anti-immigration. Either the "link" bothers the viewer or it doesn't. NCLR and SPLC don't make a distinction between white supremacists and non-racist concerned U.S. citizens because that distinction is presumed. White supremacists and non-racists are logically distinct, so there's no need for a disclaimer.

That said, I still don't understand why anyone "opposed" to illegal immigration, but "for" legal immigration, would feel the need to defend those "opposed" to immigration with the absurd claim that a) those "opposed" to illegal immigration are being linked to hate groups, and b) "illegal isn't even mentioned."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2008, 07:24 AM
 
77 posts, read 101,165 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by amc760 View Post
What is the big deal with calling illegal immigrants immigrants? thats what they are! immigrants who have crossed illegally!
Immigrants are immigrants!
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
Shoplifters are people who take merchandise. What's wrong with calling them shoppers? THey're shoppers who don't stop on the way out to pay. But they're still shoppers.
Whether a shopper is a "shoplifter" or "shopper" is a matter for the courts. Publicly calling a "shopper" a "shoplifter" is probably not a good idea unless and until the courts have decided or an admission is made. In Montana, you could be prosecuted for criminal defamation (MCA 45-8-212--which, coincidentally, carries the same maximum jail sentence as unlawful entry by an alien) for falsely accusing person or a group, class, or association of a crime. Otherwise, it can get you sued, and false accusation of a crime is defamation per se in most states. (And it just ocurred to me that the retail industry must have some ridiculous euphemism all it's own for "shoplifter"--and it's probably not "guest", its euphemism for "shopper".) Calling shoplifters "shoppers" is "wrong" because it is probably too general to effectively communicate what is meant, even if it is technically true.

Likewise, whether an alien is "illegal" or "legal" is a matter for the courts. Likewise with false accusations, except that being an illegal alien is not a crime, so a false accusation is probably not defamation per se. Likewise with the use of "immigrants" for those that actually are "illegal immigrants" being "wrong" if it interferes with effective communication.

But it's different to accuse people of being criminals online, secure in the knowledge they'll never see it and have the opportunity to defend themselves. I can think of a few words I could call people that do that to their neighbors, but I'll keep them to myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2008, 07:28 AM
 
77 posts, read 101,165 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
... When you see racism and disrespect "under every rock", you'll probably find it. If not, then you can just 'suspect' it....
I could not agree more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2008, 08:05 AM
 
77 posts, read 101,165 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyPinestra View Post
Don't try to paint me with that racist brush simply because the article appears on the American Patrol website, or any OTHER website, for that matter.

Don't try to claim that I 'recommended' any OTHER websites, either, as that just goes to show how disingenuous you can be.

The original article appeared in Harper's magazine. Have you found some information that discredits that publication or the author of said article? If not, you're simply trying to discredit it AND me by trying to associate it with some neo-Nazi, racist agenda.

I don't appreciate it, and if this wasn't a moderated website I'd tell you EXACTLY what I think of your underhanded tactics.

Have a nice day...
You recommended the Google search. I suppose if you supported American Patrol, you just would have linked them. (By the way, they have a pretty expansive view of "Fair Use" for a pro-law outfit.)

This was my own guilt-by-association smear. I plead guilty by reason of irony. An article by Ken Silverstein on a Nazi web site is just funny. Mother Silverstein must be proud. Half the commentary on this article at similar sites are probably people calling Dees a money-grubbing Jew. (Dees is not a Jew, but the name Morris gets 'em every time.)

The article, to my mind, is quite credible, as many of the sources are public records. It's actually a pretty well-known story in non-profit circles, and I don't mean to discredit it. The article is a natural for association with "hate groups" on the internet, because it criticizes Dees (again, fairly) who has a "list" (like the true master of this tactic, Joe McCarthy) of some 800 "hate groups". They can't not re-post the article.

And I also tried to smear you as a Harper's subscriber.

Sorry about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2008, 08:08 AM
 
77 posts, read 101,165 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by amc760 View Post
Too lazy to explain that he got my intention way wrong.
I was almost too lazy myself to go back and see what I'd said. I believe I was concerned about your incautious use of language. Your use of "Mexican" to apparently describe persons in the U.S. of Mexican descent is of particular concern, but I went in a different direction for some reason. Sorry for presuming you didn't watch the video. Perhaps when you're feeling less lazy you could repsond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2008, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by NibblingNed View Post
Whether a shopper is a "shoplifter" or "shopper" is a matter for the courts. Publicly calling a "shopper" a "shoplifter" is probably not a good idea unless and until the courts have decided or an admission is made. In Montana, you could be prosecuted for criminal defamation (MCA 45-8-212--which, coincidentally, carries the same maximum jail sentence as unlawful entry by an alien) for falsely accusing person or a group, class, or association of a crime. Otherwise, it can get you sued, and false accusation of a crime is defamation per se in most states. (And it just ocurred to me that the retail industry must have some ridiculous euphemism all it's own for "shoplifter"--and it's probably not "guest", its euphemism for "shopper".) Calling shoplifters "shoppers" is "wrong" because it is probably too general to effectively communicate what is meant, even if it is technically true.

Likewise, whether an alien is "illegal" or "legal" is a matter for the courts. Likewise with false accusations, except that being an illegal alien is not a crime, so a false accusation is probably not defamation per se. Likewise with the use of "immigrants" for those that actually are "illegal immigrants" being "wrong" if it interferes with effective communication.

But it's different to accuse people of being criminals online, secure in the knowledge they'll never see it and have the opportunity to defend themselves. I can think of a few words I could call people that do that to their neighbors, but I'll keep them to myself.
If an illegal is caught and deported a second time......that is a Felony-----and, we are not even discussing identity theft (false SSN's, etc) yet.

Bottom line:

The American public is now waking up the the illegal immigrant menace and most of us want 'em gone-------post haste.

Besides: if the courts really wanted to be 'hardass' about it--------RICO laws can be employed against illegals resulting in the seizure of their assets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2008, 08:27 AM
 
77 posts, read 101,165 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear View Post
If an illegal is caught and deported a second time......that is a Felony-----and, we are not even discussing identity theft (false SSN's, etc) yet.

Bottom line:

The American public is now waking up the the illegal immigrant menace and most of us want 'em gone-------post haste.

Besides: if the courts really wanted to be 'hardass' about it--------RICO laws can be employed against illegals resulting in the seizure of their assets.
Bottom line: It's a matter for the courts.

I don't think DOJ even needs RICO. Civil forfeiture for a conspiracy in restraint of trade (18 USC 981, I think it's covered). Civil forfeiture's a piece of cake, and the conspiracy gets all parties. Not that I favor it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2008, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,615,542 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by NibblingNed View Post
Bottom line: It's a matter for the courts.

I don't think DOJ even needs RICO. Civil forfeiture for a conspiracy in restraint of trade (18 USC 981, I think it's covered). Civil forfeiture's a piece of cake, and the conspiracy gets all parties. Not that I favor it.
If an employer knowingly hires illegal immigrants--------said employer deserves to be punished. If it were a middle management person who did so but the CEO was not aware of the illegal employee............then the former should be punished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2008, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,807,269 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by NibblingNed View Post
I don't see much of an immigration debate to be well-versed in. My interests are in history and law, so I have some fairly substantial gaps on some of the specific issues. I have a habit, though, of looking into coincidences, conspiracies, urban legends, etc., so I've come across a lot of this in the last two years. I don't give more weight to the side that makes their point by quantity of argument rather than quality of argument. This is a subjective matter, so I respect that you have found the quality of the arguments you support to be superior.

I guess I'm an "illegal alien apologist". The law, outside of immigration law, doesn't make that much of a distinction between legal and illegal aliens, compared to the distinction between citizens and aliens or the distinction between one or the other of the many other legal alien classes or length of residency. Historically, it has made less of a distinction, because there were fewer illegal aliens. I'm not talking about the 1850's or anything, but within the lifetime of most users of this forum. I've read enough of the old posts to expect most of the regulars to dismiss this point as irrelevant, but I'll stop now because it's off-topic.

"Apologists", "concerted effort", "an attempt to justify and obfuscate their 'true' agenda", "corporate elite profiteers from whom they receive their multi-million dollar funding". Are you kidding me? It's called corporate giving. It's about tax advantages, public relations, and--get this--philanthropy. Your words are anti-corporate hate speech, which is wrong because corporations are (legally) people too!

I don't believe that NCLR or SPLC have demonized all opposition as racists, xenophobes, nativists, etc.. That's not the case in the link you provided. FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA, etc. that were mentioned are "linked" to the same person, John Tanton. Those groups are the target, not all opposition. It's pretty standard guilt-by-asociation (Kenny-boy Lay or Jeremiah Wright, anyone?) stuff. Tanton is pro-zero--or negative--population growth, anti-immigration, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and anti-Latino by his own words. The groups he founded are pro-zero--or negative--population growth and anti-immigration. Either the "link" bothers the viewer or it doesn't. NCLR and SPLC don't make a distinction between white supremacists and non-racist concerned U.S. citizens because that distinction is presumed. White supremacists and non-racists are logically distinct, so there's no need for a disclaimer.

That said, I still don't understand why anyone "opposed" to illegal immigration, but "for" legal immigration, would feel the need to defend those "opposed" to immigration with the absurd claim that a) those "opposed" to illegal immigration are being linked to hate groups, and b) "illegal isn't even mentioned."
I am certainly cognizant of the fact that corporations are comprised of “people” (legal or otherwise); as well as the fact that there are numerous “philanthropic” organizations, all with varied motives for their endowments. I have even worked with such largesse organizations; so it’s certainly not a revelation.

Let’s not confuse altruistic “corporate giving” with vested interest “corporate lobbying” -- the former denoting benevolence; the latter denoting “agenda” -- apples and oranges. A corporation donating to a non-profit organization to feed the homeless would by most accounts be considered “charitable” -- unless said corporation influences the selection of food service vendors, and profits from those selections.

As an admitted proponent of illegal immigration, I would expect nothing less from you than to ascribe “anti-corporate hate speech” to my comments. After all, the accusation of “hate speech” has become a hallmark of illegal aliens and their supporters. Perhaps you aren’t aware of the campaign by Janet Murguia and her minions to squelch ALL opposing views. For the record, I am not anti-corporate, I am anti-unscrupulous corporations. Pardon me if I don’t have a predilection for the exploitation of people (legal or illegal), or the circumvention of our laws.

I also do not oppose legitimate “tax advantages” for corporations. However, I take issue with the “illegal” payment of wages “under the table,” and the gross underpayment of wages as a means for obtaining tax advantages. I also take issue with organizations hiring law firms to conduct workshops on “How To Avoid Hiring U.S. Citizens” or other such unethical practices. Obviously, you subscribe to the philosophy of “the end justifies the means” -- the “end” being mega profits, the “means” being cheap foreign labor (legal or otherwise).

It is certainly your prerogative to oppose U.S. immigration laws, to marginalize them, or to make no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal aliens. Likewise, it is my prerogative to oppose the lack of enforcement of our laws, the flagrant circumvention of our laws, and those profiting from cheap illegal labor. As a “legal” citizen of this country, it is also my prerogative to petition those sworn to uphold our laws. If you disagree with the laws in this country, I suggest you do the same.
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
Similar Threads
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