50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:05 am
I thought my "Screed" makes a pretty good point to which you have no answer. I will accept your acknowledgement and I guess we will have to leave it there. It is an issue of compassion.

But the Berlin wall was certainly erected to keep people from breaking the law.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:06 am
Foxfyre wrote:
The Berlin wall however separated people in their own country sometimes separating even members of the same family. It would have been cruel in any case but in that case was especially cruel.


I wasn't reflecting only to the Berlin wall - that's the one, people only seem to remember - but to the fence which divided our country, running from the Baltic Sea to the Bavarian Forest.

And 'no', I didn't miss your response to el_pohl.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:07 am
ebrown_p wrote:
I thought my "Screed" makes a pretty good point to which you have no answer. I will accept your acknowledgement and I guess we will have to leave it there. It is an issue of compassion.

But the Berlin wall was certainly erected to keep people from breaking the law.


The Berlin wall was not erected to keep lawbreakers out.l The wall was erected to keep people from leaving. That is definitely not a problem in the USA.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:09 am
The people who left East Berlin were breaking the law to do so. There were lawbreakers.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:10 am
ebrown_p wrote:

But the Berlin wall was certainly erected to keep people from breaking the law.


Officiall (= how it was described by those, who erected the fences and the Berlin wall), it was a defence against an illegal invasion by fascists.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:11 am
How ironic.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:12 am
Okay, I'll concede that Kruschchev proudly proclaimed that the wall was to protect the people from corruption by the Western Imperialistic wolf. But we all know it was to keep people from leaving the East.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:12 am
Foxfyre wrote:

The Berlin wall was not erected to keep lawbreakers out.l The wall was erected to keep people from leaving. That is definitely not a problem in the USA.


That's how we see it and what it most certainly was.

The problem is that the country, which built that fences/wall, gave a different reason.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:14 am
The issue is that (correct me if I am wrong Walter) leaving East Berlin for the West was against the law.

The people who did it were breaking the law.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:15 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Okay, I'll concede that Kruschchev proudly proclaimed that the wall was to protect the people from corruption by the Western Imperialistic wolf.


Ullbricht was his name.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:19 am
ebrown_p wrote:
The issue is that (correct me if I am wrong Walter) leaving East Berlin for the West was against the law.

The people who did it were breaking the law.


It was called "Republikfluch" - fleeing the republic - from 1957 onwards; since 1968 it was "unlawful border crossing" (Criminal Code of the GDR).
0 Replies
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:19 am
Hehe I was around, but bored of this thread. Embarrassed

Foxfyre wrote:


The Berlin wall however separated people in their own country sometimes separating even members of the same family. It would have been cruel in any case but in that case was especially cruel.

I think most people emotionally reject a wall.

In defense of the wall presumably going up on the USA/Mexican border, however, the purpose is to prevent people from breaking the law much in the same way as you may lock up and secure your house or automobile to prevent unlawful entry. It isn't the same thing as the Berlin wall.



It might not be the same thing, but it will separate families allright. Unless... they are crossing the border in this precise moment! Razz
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:22 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

The Berlin wall was not erected to keep lawbreakers out.l The wall was erected to keep people from leaving. That is definitely not a problem in the USA.


That's how we see it and what it most certainly was.

The problem is that the country, which built that fences/wall, gave a different reason.


The difference is that unless they being processed for a crime already committed, anybody is free to leave the USA anytime they want. (And I earnestly encourage those who think America sucks to do so.)

Our problem is not that people want to leave the USA. The problem is that given a choice, millions upon millions, possibly billions, of people would choose to live here. It is essential that we control that influx of humanity at a level in which it can be efficiently assimilated or we lose the very qualities that make us an attractive place to be.

I've said again and again that my position is that I am all for taking as many folks who want to be Americans with all that being American means but we have to have and enforce laws that make efficient assimilation possible. And to accomplish that, our laws have to mean something and they have to be both respected and enforced.

My problem with the wall is a) it is ugly and b) it is only a token of effort absent serious immigration reform and policy. But if it will help enforce existing laws I'll acknowledge that once that has been proved.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:24 am
The immigration debate is about compassion.

The Republican bills- particularly HR4437 definately meet this definition of cruel. They will break up more families.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:25 am
And again: there wasn't only a wall/fences in Berlin (156,4 km [43,7 km wall in Berlin; 112,7 km wall/fences in the Potsdam district]) but 1378 km (!) fences all through Germany as well!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:28 am
Yes the wall proposed here will be some 700 miles long. And that will no way extend across the entire border.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:29 am
ebrown_p wrote:
The immigration debate is about compassion.

The Republican bills- particularly HR4437 definately meet this definition of cruel. They will break up more families.


If families don't want to do it legally here, then they need to go someplace else where they can be legal together.
0 Replies
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:30 am
I wonder if any López, Gómez, or Pérez named workers will help build all those miles of wall.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:32 am
el_pohl wrote:
I wonder if any López, Gómez, or Pérez named workers will help build all those miles of wall.


No doubt they will. I have Lujan and Melendrez nephews in the construction business who would love to get the contracts.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Sep, 2006 11:32 am
Walls/fences are always a good thing because they can be counted on to separate people and people definitely need separating, especially darker people from whiter people. Who gets the wall/fence contract?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/02/2025 at 07:39:59