Imigration

[Jennifer Williams]

I just don't understand why people don't see the problem. Would you be okay with your neighbors just walking into your home and helping themselves to your food and property, sleeping in your beds, taking your money and sending it to their relatives next door? That's what this is about, isn't it? Regardless of their reasons, regardless of their problems, they are stealing from the citizens of this, and your, country. Why should we not do all in our power to stop them?

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?

Do you know how long it can take to wait for a proper visa? What if you were about to die while waiting? What if your children were about to die while waiting, and you knew there was food enough in that house for all, the people inside and also yourselves?

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea. And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.

[Thorne]

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?

Does that make what they are doing any more legal? I don't see their leaders starving. Why don't they get it from them? Or replace them.

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea.

We do welcome some 300,000+ every year. My own great-grandparents were immigrants, who came here legally and worked their butts off to make a better life for their children.

And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.

What they are "stealing" are the medical and social services which my taxes are helping to pay for. My medical bills go up to cover the costs of treating indigents and illegals. My health insurance costs go up for the same reason. My taxes go up as well. And everything that once made this country great is declining, crumbling, turning to crap, because we are spending so much money on people who don't do their share.

You want to let illegals into the country? Fine. But don't force me to pay for their health care. Don't force me to pay for their children's educations. Don't force me to provide them with free meals. Don't force me to place notices in every language because they aren't interested in learning mine. And if it makes you happy to have illegals swarming across the border, I suggest that YOU go down and live along that border. You can welcome them with open arms. Just make sure you wear your flak jacket.

[Jennifer Williams]

Does that make what they are doing any more legal? I don't see their leaders starving. Why don't they get it from them? Or replace them.

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?

Not for me.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.

So to me, when they take those taxes out of my paycheck, it's the same exact thing: I'm helping somebody, somewhere, who needs it more than I do. Could be an elderly American in a nursing home. Could be a hard-working construction worker who's on unemployment; it could be an illegal immigrant who's life could be saved by a bottle of antibiotics.

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it. I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out". They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.

And everything that once made this country great is declining, crumbling, turning to crap,

I would have to disagree; I think this country is great, and is constantly improving all the time.

[Thorne]

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights.

I never said they didn't deserve human rights. Only that they don't deserve the rights of a citizen, until they become one. A citizen who breaks the law will go to jail, regardless of his motives. Why should a non-citizen be treated differently?

Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

No, they are not! They are illegal aliens, not citizens of the United States! I don't care what color they are. I don't care what their religion is. I don't care which country they come from. They are breaking the law! That's all I care about!

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?

I know that every dollar we spend easing the suffering of non-citizens is one dollar we cannot spend easing the suffering of our own citizens.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.

Agreed. First you treat them. THEN you figure out how they're going to pay for it. For my part, once they are well enough, you send them back home to their own country and send that country the bill. Let them figure out how to collect.

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it.

Maybe they do deserve it. That doesn't mean that I deserve the hardship that comes with paying for it. Forced charity isn't charity. It's blackmail.

I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out".

I never said one word about not paying taxes. My concern is for how that tax money is used. I don't like the idea of using it to benefit criminals. Whether they are illegal aliens or politicians or big business.

They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.

They are criminals! Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are sick. Yes, their country is broken. Maybe the solution is to annex Mexico and integrate it into the US. Then the problem is solved. Or maybe instead of flocking to this country they should take back their own from their corrupt politicians and leave us alone to take back ours from our corrupt politicians!

[leo9]

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

If you answer "yes" - yes, all people deserve the same basic rights regardless of who they are or what they may have done - you are on one side of the line. (Hi!) If you answer "no" - no, some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other. It doesn't matter whether you define their wrongness as being black, gay, Muslim, terrorist-suspect, illegal-immigrant or whatever. It's the belief that human rights only apply to the right sort of humans that determines where you are going to stand on every important issue.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

[Thorne]

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

I suppose most of those who would place themselves in the 'Yes' group would classify me as being in the 'No' group, but it isn't that simple at all. I'm not advocating denying anyone their basic human rights. But my interpretation of those rights may be quite different from yours. I don't claim that my human rights are any better than someone else's human rights, either.

However, as a US citizen I have certain rights guaranteed to me under the Constitution which are not necessarily guaranteed to non-citizens. And those rights come with certain responsibilities. Allowing those same rights to non-citizens without insisting on them accepting the responsibilities that come with them cheapens those rights.

Most rational people, I think, would agree that criminals, defined as those who break the law, lose some of those rights by doing so. As a citizen, I have the right to apply for a driver's license, and once receiving one I have the right to drive my vehicle on public roads. If I commit a crime, such as driving to fast or driving while intoxicated, I could have that right revoked. I could have my freedom restricted, at least temporarily. And no one would complain about my being profiled or mistreated because of who I am. After all, I've committed a crime!

So why is it that when someone crosses the border illegally they are considered, by some, to have more rights than I have? How can anyone claim I am profiling if I send someone back for breaking the law? Aren't they subject to the same restrictions and laws as everyone else? Their color, language or homeland are not the issue! Their human rights are not the issue! The issue is that they are breaking the law! Therefore they are subject to the penalties for breaking that law, which can involve incarceration and deportation. That's not profiling.

If an illegal alien were to drive a car without a valid license, and he were to kill an innocent pedestrian, would you consider it wrong for the police to arrest him? Would they be wrong to hold him in jail? Would it be profiling to try him in a court of law for his crime? And if convicted, would we be violating his rights by sending him to prison? I think few would answer 'Yes' to any of these questions. Yet some of you seem to believe it's a violation of his rights to ask for his ID after he's struck and killed that person.

Believe me, nothing would please me more than for the entire world to be united under one flag, one government, one economy, so we could all travel anywhere we wished without worrying about borders. All people would be equal, there would be no hoarding of resources, and peace would reign over the Earth. I think it would be wonderful if we could all live together without laws to restrict our freedoms. But right here, right now, the world doesn't work that way. And allowing criminals to get away with their crimes just because you feel sorry for them isn't going to make the world a better place. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

[leo9]

However, as a US citizen I have certain rights guaranteed to me under the Constitution which are not necessarily guaranteed to non-citizens.

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

[Thorne]

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

Again someone misrepresenting what I said. I agree with you! There are certain basic human rights which all persons have. But there are other rights which are granted to American citizens, just as there are certain rights granted to British citizens, or Canadian citizens, or citizens of any country. These are ADDITIONAL rights, over and above those inalienable rights which all people have.

[DuncanONeil]

Two different documents.
Again you are confusing varying types of rights. Those referred to in the Declaration are as stated. Constitutional rights are citizen based. To go deeper the Constitution actually is a document that LIMITS rights, but only the rights of Government. Something that has been totally ignored for several decades!

I am only an ignorant foreigner without understanding of your Constitution. I had been told that your Declaration of Independence held that "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Thank you for explaining that in fact only US citizens are held to have rights.

[DuncanONeil]

But we are not discussing "human rights" but "legal rights" Two completely different things!

And now we come down to one of the fundamental lines that divide people's basic philosophies of life.

If you answer "yes" - yes, all people deserve the same basic rights regardless of who they are or what they may have done - you are on one side of the line. (Hi!) If you answer "no" - no, some people don't deserve the basic rights I consider an absolute right for me and mine, because they're the wrong sort of people - you're on the other. It doesn't matter whether you define their wrongness as being black, gay, Muslim, terrorist-suspect, illegal-immigrant or whatever. It's the belief that human rights only apply to the right sort of humans that determines where you are going to stand on every important issue.

Believing that human rights are absolute doesn't make you a liberal pushover, though you will of course be accused of it. You can be as aggressive as anyone in defending your own rights: you just recognise the challenges in doing so without violating others'.

Classing your enemies as unpeople makes everything simpler, which is one reason it's so popular. But we all know where it leads in the end.

[DuncanONeil]

I guess for me "legality" isn't as important as "humanity". Labeling a person a "criminal" doesn't take away the fact that they are still human, and still deserve human rights. Why, once they step across that line, does it irk you so to help them if they need it? Are they not people like the rest of us?

Much of what you call human rights are in fact codified in out laws. But by what you say you are in fact dismissing all law, not just those specific rules. Do you really believe that human rights trump legal rights? What about the human rights of the country's citizens that can not get help because an illegal got there first and got the last of the aid?

Take a look at your taxes. Do you know where they go, what they pay for? If we "eliminated" every last illegal person, do you think they would go down? By how much? Enough to make our indifference towards the suffering of others worth it?

Well it might help. But the real problem with taxes are not really the taxes. The problem is the people that are spending the money. What the taxes are and how much, as well as who is paying is hidden in the labyrinth of the Tax Code. The people that spend the money are the ones that make the code! If they could not hide the increases, i.e. an excess profit tax on a business (which said company never pays), things might change. Further there is no indifference to the "suffering" of others. It is just that it is noit the responsibility of the Government to decide for me what I sghould do with my money or assistance!

Not for me.

To me, all people are worth the same. If I saw a person, say, who was hit by a car dying in the road, I would call an ambulance for them. I wouldn't care if they had the right papers.

Completely off point!

So to me, when they take those taxes out of my paycheck, it's the same exact thing: I'm helping somebody, somewhere, who needs it more than I do. Could be an elderly American in a nursing home. Could be a hard-working construction worker who's on unemployment; it could be an illegal immigrant who's life could be saved by a bottle of antibiotics.

Were you able to keep that money what would stop you from personally provide the assistance you appear to be willing to provide. How do you think you would feel if you did aid someone? I suspect that you would fell considerably different that you do when you look at the taxes taken from your paycheck without your permission. It would be much more rewarding as well! You do realize that about 30% of the price of everything is actually taxes?

It doesn't matter who it is because they're all human and they all deserve it. I'm sorry but the "I don't like paying taxes" argument doesn't justify phrases like "send them back" "kick them out". They are us; and one is not more important than the other; neither does one deserve better than the other.

First you have to define what it is that is being deserved. Second not everything is equally deserved by everyone. Following you argument to its logical conclusion would mandate that every person in the country receive the exact same salary. But how do you determine that salary? Even more important what would be the result of everyone having the exact same salary?

I would have to disagree; I think this country is great, and is constantly improving all the time.[/QUOTE]

I must presume, based on your statement, that you are relatively young. How can you believe that spending the country into oblivion is an improvement. How can you believe that moving more and more people off the tax rolls to the detriment of those remaining on those rolls is an improvement? How can you believe that our elected representatives acting as the Lords & Ladies of the land is an improvement?

[DuncanONeil]

I don't think you quite understand! I have no requirement to invite ANYONE into my home. It is my choice and if done it is done under my rules. Regardless of your reasons if you choose on you own to enter you have broken the law. Does your example of hunger absolve them from the law? I think not!

We are currently accepting, as permanent residents, some 1% of our population annually. Perhaps that is not enough! But that change is a Government matter not a repudiation of law. I stated somewhat earlier, somewhere, that as the illegals are some 500,000 annually perhaps the permanent visas need to be 1,000,000. But I suspect that would do little to stem the tide.

As for stealing the "bread" I suspect you are being a bit too literal in that. An illegal taking advantage of any service provided in this country IS in effect stealing from the rest of us, at least those of us that may need said service. Then there are those businesses that are treating illegals better than the citizens of this country. They get better deals on credit, don't have to prove who they are, don't need to prove they will pay it back. This is the "bread" in question!

What if they had first been knocking for quite a few years begging for a bite to eat and a drink of water and your response was to pull the shade down in their face? Do you think that makes them less hungry or less desperate?

Do you know how long it can take to wait for a proper visa? What if you were about to die while waiting? What if your children were about to die while waiting, and you knew there was food enough in that house for all, the people inside and also yourselves?

I can tell you they wouldn't be trespassing inside your house if you welcomed them in, what a funny idea. And no, they aren't "stealing" the bread, most of them work their asses off for it. And though you would be correct to say that it is wrong for them not to pay their taxes, they still worked for the money they earned so it's not "stealing".

And though yes, there are people starving here in America, that is a distribution problem; we have enough to go around, we have plenty enough to feed ourselves and plenty extra besides, so don't try to claim that what "illegals" are taking means that an American won't have enough. Yes they will; we are the richest country in the world, and our unwillingness to share doesn't make it right.