50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:03 am
All people who - according to Foxfyre "may or may not have the best interests of the United States at heart".

When I go to a demonstrations, the last what I think about is the interest of Germany - I demonstrate to express my own opinion.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:14 am
I go to the protests precisely because I am looking out for the best interests of the United States.

Most of the people I went with would agree with this statement.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:21 am
Well, I suppose, that different view has a lot to do with the different priorities "the nation" has.

I mean, when I demonstrate against some neo-Nazi demonstration: I don't want that their presence and their views and opinions are mirrored as a reflection of general German opinion.

So in fact, I'm looking for the best interest of my country as well - but the emphasis lies on "I don't want ....".
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:24 am
Ironically in our case the roles were reversed. It was the neo-Nazi's who were demonstrating against our demonstration.

I am not sure if it is fair to say that Foxfyre agrees with them about what is best for the country.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:30 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Interestingly enough, today's front page of the Seattle newspaper featured a photo of the crowd waving five & dime store American flag miniatures, but at the forefront of the picture was a huge red banner bearing the image of none other than Che Guevera. A couple of rows back were signs which seemed to suggest illegal Mexican immigrants were, somehow, political refugees.

The whole time I watched the parade, I never saw such banners or signs so it's possible that the front page pictures spoke more to the editorial bias of the newspaper than the prevalent sentiment among the marchers.


That's interesting, indeed.

Avtually, there are two papers in Seattle.
Both had a slightly different frontpage yesterday:

"The Seattle Times" (seems you referred to it):

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/3484/zwischenablage020yz.th.jpg http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/4684/zwischenablage029xn.th.jpg

and the "Seattle Post-Intelligencer"

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/5681/zwischenablage029ix.th.jpg http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/3974/zwischenablage024vw.th.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:42 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Foxfyre,

You are awfully deluded. Which of your categories does the ADL fall into?

Quote:

"As a community that has suffered the consequences of a restrictive immigration policy, we are committed to ensuring that America's immigration policy is fair, humane, and serves our nation's interests," said Barbara B. Balser, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

The ADL leaders stressed that, "the tenor and outcome of our national debate over the fate of undocumented persons in the U.S. will speak volumes about how America welcomes and embraces foreigners from many lands who come here seeking refuge and opportunity."

Following the resolution's passage, ADL joined other Jewish organizations in a letter calling on Senators to adopt an immigration reform package that addresses the reality of the large population of undocumented workers living in our communities who currently lack meaningful rights under our law and are subject to exploitation.


ADLUSA


Okay in addition to being racist, anti-immigrant, uncompassionate, and unChristian, we can add 'deluded' to your opinion of me even as you 'teach your children not to be judgmental of others'.

I think I might be on pretty solid ground, however, and think that those who favor people being law abiding in this country probably significantly outnumber all those who are advocating that people break the law.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:47 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
All people who - according to Foxfyre "may or may not have the best interests of the United States at heart".

When I go to a demonstrations, the last what I think about is the interest of Germany - I demonstrate to express my own opinion.


I am most pleased to hear that every single person in Germany, especially those demonstrating, have the best interest of Germany at heart as they express their own opinions, Walter. I'm sure that no German has ever had a notion that was not in the interest of the greater good.

I am also most pleased that everybody present in those demonstrations are fully educated on what the issues are. I'll admit, we Americans tend to be far less superior on that score. Many Americans, some present company included, seem to have a blind eye re what most Americans believe the real issues to be and keep beating whatever drum they're beating that reflects only a portion of the larger picture.

We should probably take lessons from the Germans I suppose. How do you manage to get everybody there to think alike on these things?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:54 am
Quote:

We should probably take lessons from the Germans I suppose. How do you manage to get everybody there to think alike on these things?


I don't know whether this question is awkwardly naive, or painfully ironic.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:54 am
And apologies to Walter. I misread your intent in your post I think. You were saying that YOU do not necessarily have the best interest of Germany at heart when you demonstrate and you are simply expressing what you want. You think that might be the case with many or most. That's cool.

I do think there are a majority of Americans, however, who believe that obeying the law in this country is the way to go to accomplish the greater good, however. And I believe ebrown's optimism that those advocating breaking the law have considerable power or are as widespread as he thinks they are may be overly optimistic.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 09:02 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I think I might be on pretty solid ground, however, and think that those who favor people being law abiding in this country probably significantly outnumber all those who are advocating that people break the law.

But when laws are unjust, it can be in the best interest of the United States that its people march against them or even break them. Incidentally, the United States seems to agree, or else it would not have devoted a national holiday to celebrating one frequent breaker of unjust laws. Some of us, including myself, believe that American (and European) immigration laws have become unjust to the point of justifying protest -- and maybe even civil disobedience.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 09:11 am
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I think I might be on pretty solid ground, however, and think that those who favor people being law abiding in this country probably significantly outnumber all those who are advocating that people break the law.

But when laws are unjust, it can be in the best interest of the United States that its people break them. Incidentally, the United States seems to agree, or else it would not have devoted a national holiday to celebrating one frequent breaker of unjust laws. Some of us, including myself, believe that American (and European) immigration laws have become unjust to the point of justifying civil disobedience against them -- and certainly demonstrations against them.


A thoughtful comment Thomas. I think most honorable Americans think it far better to work to change a bad law than advocate disregarding the law. Even Rosa Parks did not escape the consequences of her breaking an unjust law, nor did she ever say that she should have done so. She was the catalyst that caused us to change a bad law. Most Ameicans agreed that the law was a bad law and it was with overwhelming consensus that the law was changed. Otherwise, it probably would not have happened at that time.

Since that time, the national conscience has matured and we go out of our way to be sure our laws are not unjustly discriminatory and that is a good thing.

So now our debate is a) are our immigration laws unjust? Most Americans believe they are not. And most Americans at this time do not agree with people breaking them and most Americans do see an injustice being done to many who are trying to operate within the law.

This is what the debate should be, and, until that issue is settled, there is simply no constructive way to deal with any of the other side issues.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 09:11 am
Foxfyre wrote:
That's cool.


That's my right (article 5 of our Basic Law). I there's no reason, why I (or others) shouldn't take it.
Nothing to do with coolness at all but with taking actively part in political life.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 09:15 am
Foxfyre wrote:
So now our debate is a) ...
...
This is what the debate should be, and, until that issue is settled, there is simply no constructive way to deal with any of the other side issues.


What was the "b)" again?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 09:18 am
Never shy about attempting to impose on others, Fox wrote:
So now our debate is a) are our immigration laws unjust? Most Americans believe they are not. And most Americans at this time do not agree with people breaking them and most Americans do see an injustice being done to many who are trying to operate within the law.

This is what the debate should be, and, until that issue is settled, there is simply no constructive way to deal with any of the other side issues.


Which is to say, that only Fox's viewpoint is valid, and no other is worthy of discussion. I have absolutely no reason to assume that your statement about what the majority of Americans believe is anything more than a oversimplistic and convenient statement.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 09:23 am
Quote:

So now our debate is a) are our immigration laws unjust? Most Americans believe they are not. And most Americans at this time do not agree with people breaking them and most Americans do see an injustice being done to many who are trying to operate within the law.


That is not the debate at all.

The debate is what to do with the 11 million people who are here.

Specifically, are we going to give people here illegally now the chance to become citizens or are we going to round them up and deport them?

I am making the argument that giving people a path to citizenship is the only solution that is compassionate and understanding. I am claiming that this is also what is best for the country, and given the way our country has benefitted from immigrants both legal and illegal, it is the only fair solution.

You are making the arugment that treating "illegal" immigrants with compassion encourages lawbreaking and is harmful for the country as a nation of laws. You are supporting (but not commiting to) the idea that harsh penalties including deportation are necessary for the country and will be supported by most Americans.

Don't mischaracterize my argument (or your own). The issue for me is compassion, not lawbreaking and as Walter says, I want just laws that are respected by all.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 09:52 am
Oh, Gawd, please help me. I haven't read the entire thread, but from what I have read, I agree with Foxfyre.

The illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as citizens. They can march and protest and demand the same rights when they are here illegally??? I don't think so. Would you demand the same humane treatment / granting of amnesty/ rights to protest with our flag upside down, etc. if the mass of illegal immigrants were from an Arab country? China? Japan? Or, even... (shudder) Old Europe?

I doubt it.

Send them home. Punish employers that hire them. Force Mexico to deal with it's own economy and population.

Also, the number of ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants doing menial labor that many claim Americans won't do, is only a small fraction. Most immigrants in the fields, kitchens, grocery stores and laundrymats are here LEGALLY.

We shouldn't be rewarding illegal behavior on the part of those sneaking across the border, or those hiring them.
0 Replies
 
el pohl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 10:02 am
Has anyone checked the NY Times? It also has a good set of pictures, with interesting declarations.

NY Times - Inmigrants

I'm worried about something though. Whatever the outcome of this debate will be, won't this fuel racism in the US?

As a sidenote, 21 employees where fired from a meat processing company after they attended a protesting march. I guess they didn't request a permit...
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 10:03 am
Oh, and I also agree that treating ANYONE with compassion who breaks the law will encourage others to do the same. (outside of minors, or the mentally ill, of course)

You can't tell me honestly that if law enforcement in your city treated people compassionately for breaking laws, you wouldn't break a few yourself. I think most Americans DO want harsh penalties for business owners and illegal immigrants, including deportation.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 10:10 am
Et Tu Squinney?

I would have put you on the compassion side of the equation.

But understand that millions of us who marched were American citizens marching because of conscience.

Right now, it seems we have stalemate. We won't let you all have your "impermeable" border, you won't let us have earned citizenship. I promise you the mass deportations will not happen.

So it looks like this may remain unresolved for a while.

But, understand there are many passionate (and compassionate) American citizens who will insist that immigrants legal and illegal are treated in a way we consider fair.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 10:26 am
The problem is NOT those who are here legally. We have quotas in place for immigrants from every other country. Why can't South America / Mexico comply? Why should they be the exception?

I'm as compassionate as the anyone on this forum. Why wouldn't it be MORE compassionate to force Mexico / South American countries to change their policies so that every South American citizen can live their dream in their homeland? Why is it the responsibility of the US tax payers to support the dreams of millions of illegals? Their health care? Their education? Their ability to earn a living wage?

Europe doesn't flood our country with illegal immigrants. Neither does China, Russia, India, or even Canada?

Perhaps, if the same effort were to be put into organizing marches in Mexico, rather than DC, to demand rights, the problem could be solved.

As for promoting racism by cracking down on illegals... No. It's not a matter of being anti - Mexican. I don't think that way.

One last thought, I cringe when I hear these marches being compared to the Civil Rights marches of the '60's. That was about equal rights for people of color who were already CITIZENS, not ILLEGAL immigrants who have no basis for demanding anything. There is no comparison.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 05:43:44