The INS in action

Great plan Au!

Make it OK to rob from immigrants.

While were at it, we should let them die when they need medical care. And we should certainly keep people from giving them water when they are in the desert.

With this logic, of course, people should be allowed to murder prostitutes. I also would guess that drug treatment is out of the question.

Your ideas of course are not new. They are just a new twist on this modest proposal:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Brown
These are not immigrants. The are 'undocumented" illegal aliens. To who we as citizens and taxpayers of the US owe nothing.
As for being in the desert without water. That is their decision not ours. It is not murder it is suicide on their part.
Let me reiterate. It is not immigration that is being objected to but illegal aliens. I won't even dignify it by calling it immigration.

That's a standard ploy, au. You are so much easier to put down if they can make it sound like you are talking about all immigrants when you clearly mean illegal aliens. It's called a straw man argument, by the way.

Roger
If Brown would give me his address I have two illegal alien families ready to move in with him. Whether he likes it or not. He gets no right of refusal.

Roger,

Au is easy to put down because his arguments are self-contradictory. It is clear that he against immigrants. It is also clear that he has not said the real reason *why*.

He starts out with a legal argument "They are breaking the law". He goes almost as far to say that those brave Americans who risked their freedom to hide runaway slaves were wrong (at least in their time).

But then with the Wal-Mart case Au completely flipflops. The law says that workers have the right to protects including overtime etc. (and the law here says nothing about immigrants). Au sides *against* the immigrants who are using legal means to get what is legally due them.

He challenges us to change the laws regarding immigration. And we are changing them -- working to get the the right to an education, medical care and a license. But then he gripes for these exact laws that we have worked (legally and democratically) to enact.

Then he makes cryptic comments disparaging people who speak Spanish. Could this be a clue to what is behind Au's rhetoric?

Au, there are several families who are *undocumented* who I am very glad to have in my community and I cherish my friendship with them.

I don't know any *illegal* families. I don't think families are illegal.

Brown
Not in your community in your house. And I want you to provide them with food, clothing, education and health care.

There you go again. He said illegal alien families. You say "*illegal* families." Is his actual argument (not your variation) so great that you have to cannot address it without making these little alterations?

Brown

What the law says is yet to be determined in a court of law. I expressed my opinion and that is that these companies should be heavily fined but these ILLEGAL aliens should not benifit from their complicity in the crime.
Again note I make a distinction between immigrants and illegal aliens. That is something you cannot seem to do.




Disagree we need no changes in the laws regarding illegal aliens. They have no right to be in this country.

Roger. You want to argue semantics? Fine.

The adjective "illegal" in this sentence is clearly modifying the subject -- "families". You are labelling a group of people "illegal".

I don't have a problem with you labelling a person as an "alien" since this is factual description and does not have a direct negative meaning to most of us. That is why I modified the statement as I did. But for your sake I will rephrase it since it is just as strong.

I don't know any illegal alien families. I don't think alien families are illegal.

Labelling someone "illegal" is a derrogatory comment. Sure there is a law against crossing the border and technically this act is "illegal". I have broken laws as well. That does not make either me or my family "illegal".

Would you say Bill Clinton was an illegal president?

My real point is that there is more to this issue than whether these immigrants are breaking the law or not. Usually it is hidden better than in Au's clumsy arugments. Au is claiming a legal argument - and it just doesn't fly.

We are working on changing the laws so that everyone who lives here is entitled to medical care, education and a decent life for them and their families. From some of the rhetoric it seems that that should make Au and you happy.

Somehow I doubt it.

Brown


What laws are we changing that will automatically turn illegal into legal. Is that the same law that changes a sows ear into a silk purse?
Happiness will be achieved when the flow of illegals is under control.Choked off! I should futher note that we have all we can do to support the medical care and education for our own citizens something we are failing to do adequately. Why should we be burdened with supporting it for some other nations citizens?
Do you think we should remove all restrictions get rid of the INS, Border patrol and hang out a sign saying come one come all the American taxpayer will support you.

"Illegal alien" is widely understood to designate aliens who have entered a country illegally. I do understand the legal fine point you raise, but you are trying to make a game of what could be a discussion.

"We are working on changing the laws so that everyone who lives here is entitled to medical care, education and a decent life for them and their families. From some of the rhetoric it seems that that should make Au and you happy."

A nice goal, except I am making the assumption that everyone who lives here means just that. If they are in the country illegally, you propose to reward illegal behaviour, which is only going to encourage more illegal behavior. That seems to be a major part of whatever plan you are pushing.

Roger, Now it is you who are playing semantic games.

I am not proposing to "reward illegal behavior". You are making a statement on the intentions of my position.

I am proposing that we treat people with basic human decency. If a person who does not have legal permission to be here needs medical help, I am going to do what it takes to give it to them. I am not doing this as a "reward". I am doing this because they have a need and it is the right thing to do.

Does this encourage more illegal behavior? Perhaps. But one could say that we encourage illegal behavior by not summarily killing people who dare to cross the border.

Humans are more important than laws.

The fact is that the US doesn't close the border because it doesn't want to. If all undocumented workers were somehow disposed of tomorrow, there would be a devastating economic effect.

So, there are people here who are undocumented. They work, they contribute to their communities, they pay taxes. They want an education for themselves and their children so that In return they will contribute to the future of our nation - as immigrants, both wanted and unwanted, have in the past.

The fact that they do not have papers from a system that, by your admission, is inconsitant and unenforced, does not take away from the fact they they are human.

Labelling someone "illegal" does not change that.

Brown
I will make this my last and final word on the subject. We do not want you to enter the US illegally and if you do you may not stay.

Good luck mandating that when predominant numbers of illegals make up and continue to make up the bulk of backstretch employees at EVERY single racetrack in America. Without them, who will fill their shoes? Certainly not the standard american who's monthly costs easily surpass the average groom/hotwalker/exercise rider's salaries. I know of two immigration raids done in the recent past at different racetracks with ironically much warning amongst the shedrows prior to their arrivals. Clearly these are hotspots but do not gain much attention from the likes of the INS, do you not wonder why? These individuals make up a pertinent cog in the wheel of racing transcending into gambling which is the lifeblood of some states (CA, KY). Hell will freeze over before the federal gov't mandates penalties to trainers and tracks hiring illegals, promoting them to move to other states, sending that state money elsewhere.

Just not feasible on the grand scale, this being but a minuit example of it.

Ebrown-p, do us the kindness of telling us: Do you believe that there is such a thing as an illegal alien? (Btw Mid 80's, I was one of the ones who fought hard to get media to use the term 'undocumented' but I think the difference between the terms is spin. The difference is sematic, illegal being the loaded, but correct term.)

Also are you so naive as to believe that all the persons in this country um how about this - without authority are working, paying taxes and behaving admirably??

Ol' Fidel sent us a nice crop with the Mariel boat lift . . . no easy answers here, and it's clear that for more than one generation, government has dropped the ball or looked the other way . . .

In the future I believe that the connection between self-determination and immigration will be a more popular position.

As the world gets smaller I believe it will be harder and harder to fight immigration through the methods currently used and that as a result there will be a lot less people fighting it.

I believe the battleground will be in containing the negative effects of immigration in the future, instead of trying to contain immigrants themselves. It is hard to deny humans their most strident wishes, I believe the methods to control immigration in the future will be better described as a carrot than a stick.

Joe, the answer to your questions are, as you expected, "yes" and "no".

But the point I am trying to make is how should we treat the people who are here.

The government has the right (and some would say responsibility) to stop people in the border, and (I guess) to find people and send them back.

They *could* do this if they wanted to - or at least they could do a much better job. The fact is the costs, both at the border and to the economy, are too high. So our system has this funny way of letting people come in and set up lives here.

My point is that we should treat the people who are living here with decency. This is not only the right thing to do according to what I believe are American values, it is also the intelligent thing to do.

Denying undocumented workers basic services (healthcare and education) is not just mean-spirit -- it is stupid. They are here. They are part of our community and our economy. They and their children will be a part of our society in the future It is to our advantage that people living here are both educated and healthy.

The mean-spirited attitude of the anti-immigration zealots is especially puzzling in this age of terrorism. Most undocumented immigrants *want* to become part of the society. They would love to get a license that would effectively register them and give them ID.

It is a lot easier to find the people who really want to do us harm if you don't force 13 million people (Au's number) to live under the radar.

Joe, your last point is irrelevent. I would say (based on experience) that the vast number of undocumented workers here do work, behave admirably and pay taxes. This number would be even higher if we made it easier . I would guess the percentage of American citizens who don't work, pay taxes or behave admirably is higher. So what.

The system is inconsistant, unfair and unenforcable. I don't have a problem when the government stops people at the border.

We should treat the people living and working and contributing here with human decency.

From your mouth to my government's brain!!!!!! (Hopeless wish)

A boatload of Turkish Kurds turned up the other day, on Melville Island, in the far north - the government responded by declaring this island not part of Australia's immigration zone, and turned them back to Indonesia - claiming they had not claimed asylum. They say they did.

I wanna emigrate - this place is getting sickening....