When your answer to a supposedly "bad" Law is to simply not enforce it and not reform it, the only option remaining is lawlessness.
In this case, your posts support that lawlessness.
The people being demonized that we're discussing in this thread are those being described as "Anti-Immigration" when they are clearly and unquestionably not. They are Anti-ILLEGAL Immigration. Why do you keep skipping right over the point?Demonizing politicians
Disagree.I don't think there's ever going to be a parity of terms in that debate; one side is pro-choice, the other is anti-abortion.
The debate is not over "choice". There is no law against making choices. When I sit at the counter at luch, I will not go to jail for CHOOSING the Tuna Caasserole over the Prime Rib (well, maybe cullinary jail).
There si no such thing as "Pro-Choice", as the issue at question is not "choice". It's Abortion.
One is either Pro-Abortion, i.e. pro Abortion being illegal and pro the direct result of legal abortion which is, shockingly, more abortions OR they are Anti-Abortion, i.e. they do not want Abortions being performed legally.
Obviously, there is also some middle ground/moderate/centrist/compromise positions, where they are Pro-SOME Abortions being legal, and Anti-OTHER ABORTIONS being legal. But the issue is still Abortion.
Abortion is not choice. It's abortion.
In the case of the issue here, being Anti-Illegal Immigrant does not directly mean than one is anti-immigrant. It is a clear-cut subsection of a greater whole, and teh argument being made in teh vast majority is VERY specific to the subset, not the whole. The issue is not Immigrantion, the same as it is not Choice. The issue is ILLEGAL Immigration, which is why the mischaracterization and demonization as being Anti-Immigrant, i.e. a nativist/racist, is so damaging to rational discourse.
When the starting point of the discussion is a dishonest and inaccurate demonization and cries of nativism and racism, how can we expect to reach any form of consensus?
And there in lies the problem. Neither the politicians or the media benefit from consensus. They want and expect ambiguity and raw emotion to continue to prevail, and fund their respective occupations and interests.
Last edited by Axil; 06-25-2012 at 01:47 PM.
What is the solution? I will be critical of any position who thinks "round 'em up, ship 'em out" can work with 12 million illegals.
But what Dean said? I mean I don't think it's great economic policy, but yea, holding those who hire illegals legally responsible might work. I definitely agree that illegals should NOT benefit from any part of the welfare state.
Perhaps those two ideas combined with accepting productive illegals into our society, on a path to citizenship, would be best.
Like most issues, it's not simple. It would take years to come up with a truly informed and worthy opinion.
Last edited by SafetyBlitz; 06-25-2012 at 04:42 PM.
You're Pro-Abortion Rights.
You're not for or against people making "choices" anymore than you are for or against "fairness".
You're for the right to have an Abortion, even if you hope people won't utilize that right. That is the only thing at question in the Abortion debate, the right to have an Abortion and when.
Not the right to make choices. Nor, for that matter, "Life". Pro-Life is equally vague and inapproprite IMO, as there is no accepted and agreed upon definition of a fetus as a indipendant life, only a political position that it is/isn't at certain stages.
We all generally agree with have a problem of Illegal Immigration, given we currently have anywhere from 12 to 25 million undocumented illegals in the United States.
On one side, we have a side who wants current Law, bad or not, enforced until such time as new law or reform can be crafted. These are the folks being described as "Anti-Immigrant" for wanting Law followed until reform can be created.
On the other side, your side apparently, we have a side who believes simply ignoring the Law at the behest of our Leader in Chief is the best choice, and that reform can come whenever, and that the Federal Govt. apparently bears no liabillity for it's decision to not enforce the Law or pay for the consequences of that choice.
For wanting Law followed, we're frauds. For supporting party-based lawlessness, you are.....what, pragmatic?
Exhibit A for this type of argument: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...taco_talk_coll
Some choice passages that got me pissed:
There is, in fact, shame in Pedro Victor's story, assuming he wasn't an asylum seeker. Not a tremendous amount, perhaps, and more good than bad, on balance . . . but lawbreaking is shameful.On August 31, 1962, a sixty-three-year-old Cuban citizen named Pedro Víctor García boarded a Pan American Airways flight to Miami without a valid visa. After he landed, immigration police detained him. They could have deported Victor back to Havana immediately, but, for reasons that are unclear, they allowed him to stay, and to plead his case. Eventually, he became a legal resident of the United States.. . .
[snip paragraph about how that was Rubio's grandfather]
There is no shame in Pedro Víctor’s story, of course; it merely illustrates, with a relatively happy example, the arbitrariness of America’s immigration system. The shame lies in how the Republican Party—and leaders like Rubio—offers only empty gestures toward compromise with the Administration to fix that system, and has instead adopted a xenophobic platform that gives priority to security crackdowns and rollbacks of immigrants’ rights.
The "problem" is Obama didn't just proclaim a general amnesty?Under Obama’s plan, illegal immigrants under the age of thirty who were brought to the United States as children and have certain other qualifications, such as a high-school diploma and a clean police record, can apply for work permits and the right to live free from the fear of arrest. . . . The problem is that Obama’s plan leaves a vast number of law-abiding but undocumented residents in the shadows.
Seriously? Read Federal law. Any "undocumented immigrant" who came here voluntarily is guilty of breaking the law. There's no getting around that.The trouble with “dreamer” thinking is that it gives credence to the notion that the best way to address America’s eleven million undocumented immigrants is through a prism of law and order. The same reasoning that presumes innocent children also presumes guilty parents. There are criminals among the undocumented, but most migrants came here to work, and, in many important respects, the United States invited and tolerated their activity.
Again, seriously? What portion of the law, on the books, which says "entering the US illegally is illegal" is "ambiguous"? And how can you "criminalize" those who break the law? They've already "criminalized" themselves! This is like having a discussion, while a thief is on trial, about whether we really want to "criminalize" theft! The law is already on the books. More, the author's argument, essentially, is that we should have no immigration law at all. Ridiculous.Migrants often took the kinds of jobs—in chicken slaughterhouses and fish canneries—that Americans did not want, for wages they would not accept. And business owners and agricultural interests frequently recruited migrants for this work. As recently as 2004, after a period in which immigration officials concentrated heavily on terrorism threats, enforcement of immigration laws against American business owners—as opposed to against individual migrants crossing the border—was almost nonexistent. To criminalize those who responded to this ambiguous employment opportunity is irrational and inconsonant with American history.
Radical nativism is turning America’s foundational narrative into a wedge issue, and Republican leaders are going along, unwilling to challenge their base’s dislocated anger. They are undermining national cohesion in ways large and small. Almost all immigrant success stories involve serendipity and empathy from those who arrived earlier. Sometimes the stories turn on the restraint of local police officers. That seems to be the import of Pedro Víctor García’s experience, if only his grandson—and his grandson’s party—could discern it.
It's amazing how well the left writes the arguments against even its best ideas.