[Annuna]

http://www.examiner.com/Top_News-a70...e_to_pass.html

I've brought my problems with Newsome up before, and I was going to let it go after being beaten on by Razor and Sev, but after this, I can't let it go now. Defying California law was not enough, now he has plans to disregard National law (if passed). If every mayor, or governor, or military leader, or anyone in a position of power, were to disregard laws because they don't agree with them, we would fall into a state of anarchy. I can't accept this as an appropriate way to govern, with a pick and choose mentality.

I will now prepare to receive a beating by Razorwire and Severoth.

[Mad Erik]

I'll avoid the issue of why this guy is defying the hierarchy of United States government. That really doesn't matter, IMO. Whether or not you agree with his intent, he's going to wind up getting his ass indicted if he keeps this silliness up. Nobody can freely disregard our Constitution and the way our country has been run since its inception. It doesn't matter at all what his constituents want.

If a town in Arizona votes unanimously to legalize marijuana, you can bet that DEA agents would be arriving by the busload to 'remind' them that federal laws will never be overwritten by local ordinances.

The United States wins against a town mayor, and this guy's 'David vs. Goliath' publicity stunts may work to get him reelected, but only if he doesn't wind up before a grand jury, which is becoming more possible every time he opens his mouth. I hope his attention-grabbing doesn't overshadow the issues. There are a lot better ways he can demonstrate his views, including campaigning for representatives, pledging support for candidates that back his agenda, drumming up community participation and awareness, running for a higher office, etc. Stamping his feet and 'daring' the federal government to 'do their worst' is a good way to get Uncle Sam to do just that...and believe me, it's a lot worse than he seems to understand.

[Razorwire]

Originally Posted by Annuna

http://www.examiner.com/Top_News-a70...e_to_pass.html

I've brought my problems with Newsome up before, and I was going to let it go after being beaten on by Razor and Sev, but after this, I can't let it go now. Defying California law was not enough, now he has plans to disregard National law (if passed). If every mayor, or governor, or military leader, or anyone in a position of power, were to disregard laws because they don't agree with them, we would fall into a state of anarchy. I can't accept this as an appropriate way to govern, with a pick and choose mentality.

I will now prepare to receive a beating by Razorwire and Severoth.

/low whistle

Wow, good for him! Remeber it's part of the checks and balances system that the Administration can choose not to enforce th elaws past by the Legislative section of the government. And also remmeber that this only covers SF, not South SF or Daly City or etc... What I think is missing from this debate and from most of our elected politicians is the back bone to stand up and say this isn't right and I am not doing it. Again he is taking the stance of protecting people, not oppressing people like the federal government would like him to.

Also to obey the proposed legislation would be in direct defiance of the already known presidence in the city of San Francisco

Originally Posted by The Article

It is not the first time San Francisco has weighed in on the immigration issue. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors made San Francisco a “City of Refuge.” The ordinance forbids city resources from being used to enforce federal immigration laws or to gather or disseminate information regarding the status of residents of The City. The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution reaffirming the ordinance in January.

Originally Posted by Mad Erik

I'll avoid the issue of why this guy is defying the hierarchy of United States government. That really doesn't matter, IMO. Whether or not you agree with his intent, he's going to wind up getting his ass indicted if he keeps this silliness up. Nobody can freely disregard our Constitution and the way our country has been run since its inception. It doesn't matter at all what his constituents want.

If a town in Arizona votes unanimously to legalize marijuana, you can bet that DEA agents would be arriving by the busload to 'remind' them that federal laws will never be overwritten by local ordinances.

The United States wins against a town mayor, and this guy's 'David vs. Goliath' publicity stunts may work to get him reelected, but only if he doesn't wind up before a grand jury, which is becoming more possible every time he opens his mouth. I hope his attention-grabbing doesn't overshadow the issues. There are a lot better ways he can demonstrate his views, including campaigning for representatives, pledging support for candidates that back his agenda, drumming up community participation and awareness, running for a higher office, etc. Stamping his feet and 'daring' the federal government to 'do their worst' is a good way to get Uncle Sam to do just that...and believe me, it's a lot worse than he seems to understand.

Think I will start with http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4570.html Yes Mary Jane is legal in Denver, Colorado... admittedly you still can't legaly have it or smoke it due to the federal restrictions on the drug but that also does mean that the local police force won't be enforcing the federal mandates as strictly as the fed would like. I didn't hear about the DEA raiding the crap out of Denver... (I could be wrong though).

Newsom is doing what he should be and directing the administration of SF in a way that the citizens of SF want him to.

Anyway just going to sign off with, Newsom hasn't yet done anything illegal and not directing resources to the new legislation isn't illegal, it's budgeting.

/puts on him flame retardant suit and gets ready to be ripped a new one



/edit
just adding a couple of extra links to reports of the Denver legalising pot story
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...1-03-pot_x.htm
http://www.saferchoice.org/
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...ijuana&spell=1

[Severoth]

First and foremost, I would like to say that I hold human rights above the laws of any nation. I think the U.N. and countless previous wars and conflicts throughout the world will attest that I am not in the minority in believing this.

While our Constitution either directly or implicitly protects human rights, its wording can seem a bit ambiguous. Instead, I will refer to the Declaration of Independence. Although it is not law, it is, nonetheless, part of the foundation of this country. After all, the Declaration is the justification for the very existence of our country. Allow me to present one of the most famous excerpts from our Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

- An Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

Something to consider. Here's a completely hypothetical situation but in a realistic historical setting:

It's 1950. You're the mayor of Springfield, a predominantly African-American city. However, your State's legislature has previously passed laws to segregate the State according to race. The issue of this State's segregation laws has been taken to the Supreme Court, which ruled that segregation is legal (assuming all segregated facilities are equal).

You, being the mayor of a city strongly affected by these "higher" State-level laws, are very concerned that despite the Supreme Court's ruling, segregation is a violation of the highest laws of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Not only do you feel this law is illegal according to the highest laws of the land, but the city, for which you are repsonsible for governing, is growing extremely discontent with the State-level laws. In addition, the State-level segregation laws are costing the city not only restless citizens, who are upset over unfair treatment, but these laws are also costing the city and businesses money to build & upkeep duplicate restroom, dining, waiting, transportation, etc. facilities.

Now, the proper way go about getting this State-level law changed would be to campaign and rally support in the State legislature. However, your State's citizenry is predominantly white, who mostly support their elected official's views on upholding segregation. So a state-level campaign is obviously not going to work. The majority of the legislature backs these segregation laws. So, federal help must be sought.

In the federal government, to question whether laws are constituional, you must present your grievances before federal courts, appealing if necessary until the Supreme Court makes a final decision. However, just recently the Supreme Court ruled to uphold State-level segregation laws.

You could still seek the help of Congress. However, Congressional leaders are unwilling to give this controversial issue any real time for consideration before the houses of Congress.

So all "proper" methods of seeking change are either exhausted or pointless. But you're the mayor of a predominantly African-American city. The majority of your city's citizenry is having some basic human rights violated, but not much is being done because on the higher state and federal levels, your city's majority is the minority of the state and nation.

What do yo do? Sure, you've sworn oaths to uphold city, state, and federal laws. It's also your duty to govern this city fairly, keep the peace, protect the rights of its citizens, and help the city prosper.

So do you uphold the laws of segregation and enforce them because that is what is legal? Or do you do what is in the best interest of your city, and ignore the state and federal laws/rulings to protect the rights of your city's people?

----------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, the violation of the rights of the minority is often a problem, especially in a democracy, where the majority, who don't agree with the minority, make the law. I completely agree that it should be the majority vote deciding law, but it should never be at the expense of the rights of the minority. When the majority ceases to respect the rights of the minority, our democracy is truly mob rule. Just read my signature quote. This is why our Constitution exists. To protect the rights of everyone, especially the minority.

The mob-rule mentality is more dangerous than the act of ignoring mob-approved laws, which violate the basic rights of a minority. Following laws that violate equal treatment and human rights just because these laws have been voted upon and approved makes a nation not much different from Hitler's fascist regime, where the majority was taking away the rights of the minority, with the excuse that it's the will of the majority and it benefits the majority.

I think it's really petty to wag your finger disapprovingly at a political leader, who is trying to uphold the rights of people in his city (immigrants, homosexuals, whoever) by choosing to ignore human-rights-violating laws. Just because laws have been approved by the state legislature or Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court does not make those laws "right" or "just" when considering the even more basic principles of equal treatment and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think my above example has some significant similarities to San Francisco's conundrum. Though the majority of people in San Francisco may not be homosexual and immigrants, the city has a more significant portion of these groups than most other cities (maybe not immigrants but homosexuals). Homosexuals and immigrants are a significant portion of San Francisco's population. However, nationally, homosexuals and first-generation immigrants are a minority. And if the majority conservative Congress and Supreme Court is any indication, the majority of our nation isn't very sympathetic or concerned about the fair or equal treatment of these two minority groups.

I, for one, put basic human rights before the law, just as I would have during the Civil Rights Movement, had I been there. According to the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers thought the government ought to be overthrown or altered, if it violated certain inalienable rights. I dare say that ignoring a government's rules that violate people's rights is a bit less drastic than overthrowing it, as our founding fathers suggested. I'm glad to see the mayor of San Francisco has a similar stance.

As for the immigration law, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin both said variations of this this, and I completely agree:

"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither."

-Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison

I think Ben Franklin used "security" instead of "order" with a slightly different wording. But take note of those words of wisdom.

In this country of all places, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, it should NEVER become illegal for people to live, be free, be treated equally, and pursue their own happiness. These aren't only the rights of U.S. citizens but rather the rights of every single human being.

[Loampounder]

Originally Posted by Severoth

In this country of all places, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, it should NEVER become illegal for people to live, be free, be treated equally, and pursue their own happiness. These aren't only the rights of U.S. citizens but rather the rights of every single human being.

So you are saying that every other country is the world is violating human rights by just having immigration controls that are enforced within their own boundries? Next thing you know, Sev will be outlawing locks on doors because, according to human rights, there is no trespassing.

I get irritated by people who confuse human rights with rights of citizenship. How dare these immigrants and immigant rights groups insist that people have an inherent right to be here while Mexico enforces much stricter immigration policies within their country than we do. It's hypocricy for Mexicans to demand that we change but do not change their own laws.

What many people do not understand (or do not discuss) is that citizenship has rights AND responsibilities. It's that duality that makes citizenship and a democratic nation possible. Upholding laws and promoting peaceful change through the government system is part of that responsibility. Newsome has no concept of his proper place or his responsibility to his community.

Worse, it's hypocrisy in leadership. How can a leader of a city expect anyone to follow his city's laws if he does not follow the state or federal laws? Can a business in San Francisco not hire homosexuals and defend themselves with Sev's argument on checks and balances? Can we argue that a business has a human right to run their organization the way they want? It's ironic that Newsome gets his power from his position but will not respect the very same power from the state or federal offices.

[Severoth]

Originally Posted by Loampounder

I get irritated by people who confuse human rights with rights of citizenship. How dare these immigrants and immigrant rights groups insist that people have an inherent right to be here while Mexico enforces much stricter immigration policies within their country than we do. It's hypocrisy for Mexicans to demand that we change but do not change their own laws.

Sounds like some one has been watching too much Bill O'Reilly, as he made this argument on his show the other night on Fox News. This isn't about Mexico. This is about the U.S. The U.S. was founded on different principles from Mexico and from most other countries. As I said, "In this country of all places..."

This country is supposed to be setting the example on human rights and liberties (on which we were founded), not stooping to the level of other countries who do not believe, practice or uphold such values.

The excuse that "I should not, because they are not" is completely childish and weak. This country is supposed to be a leader on the fronts of human rights and liberties.

Unless you are full-blooded Native American, you are and your ancestors are NOT the original human inhabitants of this country. We are all here as a result of ancestors immigrating here.

The real hypocrisy is that most Americans are here as a result of their ancestors immigrating here. Other than the resources to travel here, most of our ancestors encountered no boundaries to entering this country. Most didn't have to take written exams and fill out applications. They didn’t have to wait for background checks and the approval of a government official. They didn’t have to enter a wait list. They didn’t have to “prove” their willingness to be a good and responsible citizen. Yet, they entered America.

So our ancestors immigrated here with far fewer boundaries to entry, and as a result, we are here. Many of us were simply born in the U.S., which required no effort on our part. Despite the lucky twist of fate that born some of us in the U.S. and others born elsewhere, it is hypocritical that we demand others earn the right to be here, when we ourselves have put forth no effort to become a citizen of the U.S. Most of us were simply born here. Considering many of our ancestors killed and/or displaced the original human inhabitants of this land, who really has a “right” to be here? Well, no one is entitled to a right to live in any specific place. But in a country based on liberty and human rights such as freedom, life, pursuit of happiness, and equal treatment, it is definitely NOT the place of this country to deny people those human rights. Yes, those are human rights, not only the rights of U.S. citizens. Our founding fathers recognized this fact in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

- An Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

Originally Posted by Loampounder

What many people do not understand (or do not discuss) is that citizenship has rights AND responsibilities. It's that duality that makes citizenship and a democratic nation possible.

Absolutely. I NEVER said immigrants have a right to citizenship. I said that in this country, so long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others, every human being has a right to life, liberty, equal treatment, and the pursuit of happiness. Need I repeat the Declaration of Independence, again? You accuse me of confusing human rights and citizen rights, but I definitely have not confused them. I referred to the Declaration of Independence because it specifically addresses human rights rather than those of only U.S. citizens (like many laws). Though the Declaration isn’t exactly law, it is the very justification for the existence of our country. To deny it is to deny the reason our founding fathers gave for creating our nation.

Speaking of civic duties/responsibilities, why is it that most American citizens (two-thirds) do not vote? Since they are unwilling to practice and carry the burden of a citizen of Democracy, do they deserve to be citizens? What about the millions of immigrants who would like to take part and have a voice in our democracy, but cannot do so because of the boundaries to citizenship? Do those immigrants deserve the responsibility of citizenship more than those born in the U.S. and take for granted their rights and responsibilities? While I am not saying this is so, it is something to bear in mind.

Regardless of citizenship, there are basic human rights for every human being. Our country claiming to be the leader of democracy, liberty, and human rights should be setting the example of how to treat every human, not just U.S. citizens.

Originally Posted by Loampounder

Upholding laws and promoting peaceful change through the government system is part of that responsibility. Newsome has no concept of his proper place or his responsibility to his community.

If you read that excerpt from the Declaration, you realize that if our government violates such things as the right to pursuit of happiness and equality, then “it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it [the Government].” When marriage laws and criminal laws do not treat homosexuals and immigrants equally to others and it interferes with their pursuit of happiness (which doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others), then our government is violating basic human rights. I can dig up quotes from many of our founding fathers who said they secured the right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution so that the People would have the means to overthrow a government who starting violating their rights. While this law may be a bit outdated (another separate discussion), it still expresses the extent, to which our founding fathers thought we should go, if our rights were violated. The New Hampshire motto comes to mind, “Live free or die.”

Newsome is NOT advocating violent insurrection. In fact, in light that state and federal governments are currently controlled by conservatives, who are not particularly sympathetic to the rights and equal treatment of these two minority groups (immigrants and homosexuals), Newsome is advocating a very peaceful method to uphold the laws of human rights. He is simply saying ignore the lesser laws which violate the higher laws of human rights, since there’s no hope of these lesser laws getting overturned in the near future. That is quite peaceful. As our founding fathers would agree, it is the responsibility of every citizen to uphold and protect our rights. Newsome is doing just that. And he isn’t infringing upon the rights of anyone else. And he isn’t being violent. Is he obnoxious? Yeah, maybe. Heck, even probably. But he is definitely willing to protect the rights and equal treatment of homosexuals and immigrants. I would argue that a leader unwilling to stand up for the rights of a people, especially when those rights are being challenged, that that leader is not doing his duty.

Originally Posted by Loampounder

Worse, it's hypocrisy in leadership. How can a leader of a city expect anyone to follow his city's laws if he does not follow the state or federal laws? Can a business in San Francisco not hire homosexuals and defend themselves with Sev's argument on checks and balances? Can we argue that a business has a human right to run their organization the way they want? It's ironic that Newsome gets his power from his position but will not respect the very same power from the state or federal offices.

In this country, the power of the government is derived from the consent of the people, whom it governs. When that government violates the rights of those it governs, it's time for change and action. When the "proper channels" aren't working, you seek what means you can to defend the basic rights of people.

A business cannot deny employment to a homosexual for simply being a homosexual. No one has the right to do anything that infringes upon the rights of others. While the owner of a business has the right to freedom on many of their decisions, that liberty does not extend to treating people unequally. At that point, they have over extended their freedom to violate the rights of others. That is limit to freedom in our country. You simply cannot infringe upon the rights of others.

The true irony is that the federal government is willing to violate the basic principles of this country and its Constituional laws, that all people have the rights of equal treatment, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. How are our federal and state governments violating these rights? By holding people in prison without charges or trials (Guantanomo Bay). By spying on private lines of communication without warrants (Bush’s domestic spy program). By marriage laws recognizing the union of two people for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals. And by criminalizing (a felony at that) being in this country to seek a better life and freedom.

This shouldn’t be about the hierarchy of power and laws. This is about when that hierarchy of laws and power oversteps it’s boundaries to violate human and civil rights. This is about upholding and protecting the most important principles in America, those stated in our Constitution and Declaration.

Thank goodness that some people are willing to recognize and say when the federal and state governments are overstepping the boundaries that our Constitution and Declaration place on the government. It is the duty of every person in this country to stand up for their rights, from the lowliest human being all the way to our political leaders.

[ziggyholiday]

I'd rather try and stay on topic for this post, bringing the left and right into this discussion will only lead us down a path very far from where this started.


So far everyone agreeing with the Mayor of San Fran has mentioned the violation of the basic human rights of illegals, or at least from what I saw they have. How would tightening the control of our countries borders violate someone’s basic human rights?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
In this country of all places, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, it should NEVER become illegal for people to live, be free, be treated equally, and pursue their own happiness. These aren't only the rights of U.S. citizens but rather the rights of every single human being.

quote from sev (cause I didn't get the quote tag right)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

That means you can't live, be free or get treated equally anywhere but America? I'm only asking so please doesn’t take that as a personal attack or me trying to start anything but an intelligent debate. I don't see how border control or even deporting illegals would infringe on that right. That's just us exercising our right to know who is coming into our country, which is important when you look at the mess we've made in other countries.

Our immigration laws are at best broke, completely shutting ourselves off makes as little sense as letting everyone in. From my view point the best solution is a guest worker program that works. Companies all over America need and use guest workers but the system is broke. Last I checked the only time a company can apply to the federal government for guest workers is in late summer early fall and the company has to need those workers within months of applying with the fed. So, if you own a seasonal business take fishing canneries in the Baltimore area, and your work starts in the spring, your out of luck because ski resorts have already used up the less than 20,000 workers the government lets come through the quest worker program. Well, at least that's what NPR said last year about it. Open this system up, don't put any limits on the amount of guest workers that can come to America or when the business has to apply for them. Companies have to give these workers a fair wage and the workers in turn pay taxes. If your already here ILLEGALLY, your company has to apply for your status as a guest worker and you start paying taxes, nothing else happens. If you or your company doesn't do this, you get shipped back home and your company gets a hefty fine. Like living here? Great, you get to go through the same process anyone else would to become a citizen. I think this would help our problem with people crossing our borders illegally, but of course we need to strengthen the control of our own boarders. There is no reason not to, in fact not doing so is plan irresponsible.


As far the Mayor of San Francisco goes, it's political grandstanding at best and nothing more. There is a disgusting trend into today's society to care more about anything else but America or it's people. Certain groups care more about the wearing of furs or how KFC treats the chickens they kill than they do about the homeless people in their own cities. Evil shit goes down all over the world, there is no disputing that, but lets take care of our own citizens before we go spouting our mouths off about something. Look to your own states, cities or neighborhoods and see how you can make it better before you get on your soap box and preach about the evils going on in the remote parts of the world. When we fix our own problems then we can worry about everyone else’s.

Yeah that last bit is a little off topic but it just irks me, something tells me that Mayor could be doing a lot more for his city and it's people other than calling press conferences talking about illegal immigrants.

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Again he is taking the stance of protecting people, not oppressing people like the federal government would like him to.

OH COME ON! How is protecting our borders or trying to change the immigration laws to help us protect ourselves oppressing people?!? That is actually offensive. Unreal. And how can you claim that the Federal government wants him to oppress these people? Are you talking about the same Federal government that up until now has ignored this issue and let it become the the mess it has become? You're too much. Was Reagan oppressing these people when he granted them all amnesty?

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Anyway just going to sign off with, Newsom hasn't yet done anything illegal and not directing resources to the new legislation isn't illegal, it's budgeting.

Yeah, I hope he's great at that, because once the system gets overwhelmed by all the illegals getting goods and services on the goverment dollar, themselves never having contributed to the system, then they'll really need those "budgeting" skills to help them with that. And if you think I'm just blowing smoke, look at what happened to Germany after the wall came down and millions of Eastern Germans who had never contributed to the system were now all of sudden claiming goods and services from the system.

Originally Posted by Severoth

First and foremost, I would like to say that I hold human rights above the laws of any nation.

How noble. How about you consider my rights and the rights of countless of millions of LAW ABIDING citizens who either were born here in America or immigrated here LEGALLY and want and deserve secure borders. Is that not a "right" of ours?

Originally Posted by Severoth

I think it's really petty to wag your finger disapprovingly at a political leader, who is trying to uphold the rights of people in his city (immigrants, homosexuals, whoever) by choosing to ignore human-rights-violating laws.

And I think it's petty and arrogant of you to look down your nose at someone for having the <gasp> temerity to question some nut-job politician who has demonstrated nothing but a self-serving interest to get himself in the national news to further his own political agenda. Again, I ask, how in hell is enforcing our immigration laws violating someones human rights?!? No one has a "right" to violate our laws by coming here illegaly.

What does that tell those people who did come here legally? Those people who spent the time and effort and money to do it the right way... the legal way.
It tells them:
"Why bother? Just sneak in, don't get caught for a few years and they'll just grant you amnesty. Meanwhile, make sure to take advantage of the welfare system, our schools, and oh by the way, did you know that as an illegal immigrant, some states will give you a free education? Just make sure you don't become a legal citizen while getting your education because then you'll have to pay it back, see, they don't offer this free tuition to the legal citizens."

Originally Posted by Severoth

When the majority ceases to respect the rights of the minority, our democracy is truly mob rule. Just read my signature quote.

Perhaps you should read your own quote and attempt to understand it better. First of all, the "right" to disobey the laws of the land is NOT guaranteed. Secondly, no one is disrespecting the right of anyone to immigrate here as long as they do it legally.

As for Thomas Jefferson and his little pearl of wisdom that you so sagely threw about in your retort... did the liberty he spoke of apply to his slaves also?

Originally Posted by Severoth

In this country of all places, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, it should NEVER become illegal for people to live, be free, be treated equally, and pursue their own happiness. These aren't only the rights of U.S. citizens but rather the rights of every single human being.

Well guess what, illegal aliens DO infringe upon the rights of others and in so many ways that I won't even go into it because I'm sure the argument is lost on you.

Originally Posted by Severoth

The real hypocrisy is that most Americans are here as a result of their ancestors immigrating here. Other than the resources to travel here, most of our ancestors encountered no boundaries to entering this country. Most didn't have to take written exams and fill out applications. They didn’t have to wait for background checks and the approval of a government official. They didn’t have to enter a wait list. They didn’t have to “prove” their willingness to be a good and responsible citizen. Yet, they entered America.

But they did it LEGALLY, regardless of what the requirements for legal entry were at the time. Times change and so do methods. Millions of people have entered this country legally through all phases of the immigration process since it's inception till now and will continue to do so.

Originally Posted by Severoth

...it is hypocritical that we demand others earn the right to be here, when we ourselves have put forth no effort to become a citizen of the U.S.

Such crap. Tell that to my wife, who is German and had to put forth a tremendous amount of effort to become a U.S. Citizen. Tell that to my MEXICAN mother who also had to put forth alot of effort to become a Citizen. They too are calling for better immigration laws. They don't think it's right for someone to just waltz in and ignore OUR laws anymore than I or Loampounder or Annuna do. So it's not just "majority" America that's wants the laws of the land upheld as you would lead us to believe, it's legal immigrants as well.

[Razorwire]

Originally Posted by Valerius

OH COME ON! ... snip a bunch of stuff some good some really trolly...

Okay I will give ground that I was probably a bit strong using the language "oppression" but beyond that you really have no idea what you are talking about. The constant demonisation and dehumanisation of illegals through out your post is appauling, they are on the whole good people just trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. The life of an illegal is not this glitzy goverment money funded paradise that you seem to envision it is hell pure and simple. Criminalising these people is not the anwser.

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by Razorwire

The constant demonisation and dehumanisation of illegals through out your post is appauling, they are on the whole good people just trying to make a better life for themselves and their family.

Ok, give me one instance where I demonize and dehumanize illegals in my post. I've re-read it several times and maybe I'm blind, but I can't see where I dehumanize or demonize anyone. Please, don't put words in my mouth, I have a hard enough time defending what I actually do write.

If you refer to where I say that illegals are drain on our social systems or where I say that illegals being here DO infringe on our rights, then I can't help you there, those are simple facts, whether you agree with them or not.

And I happen to know, first hand, that, for the most part, the illegal aliens ARE indeed good people (like you said) who are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. My question to them and you is: Why can't they do it legally?? As I mentioned in my first post, my mother is Mexican and she immigrated legally. Her mother and her brothers and sisters also immigrated here legally. They have jobs, they pay taxes and have stayed out of legal troubles. No one has a problem with them being here.

Originally Posted by Razorwire

The life of an illegal is not this glitzy goverment money funded paradise that you seem to envision it is hell pure and simple.

I'm sorry, I NEVER once said that the life of an illegal is a paradise. Once again you're trying to put words in my mouth. In fact, I imagine it does suck to be constantly afraid of deportation, not being able to go to the hospital for fear of being "outed", or being jailed for being here illegaly (not that that is really happening all that much or we wouldn't be having this discussion), so again, why don't they do it legally and remove such obstacles and worries?

And while not a "government money funded paradise", it's well documented that illegal aliens do get access to certain funds and services that you or I as legal, tax-paying citizens are not equally entitled to. How is that right? Justify that to me if you can.

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Criminalising these people is not the anwser.

I agree that throwing these people in jail is not the answer, but I hate to break it to you... by definition illegal aliens are already criminals (that's probably why the word "Illegal" is used to describe them ).

Regardless of how you want to paint it, or justify it, the fact remains that when someone enters our country illegaly, they have broken our laws (whether you agree with them or not they are still the law of the land) and are therefore, at least technically, "criminals", ie., "someone who has committed (or been legally convicted of) a crime.

Originally Posted by Razorwire

... but beyond that you really have no idea what you are talking about.

No, sadly, I think it's you who doesn't have a clue and your attempts to put words in my mouth, not once, but twice, to try to make me look like some rabid anti-immigrant proponent lend weight to that assertion.

[Razorwire]

Originally Posted by Valerius

Ok, give me one instance where I demonize and dehumanize illegals in my post. I've re-read it several times and maybe I'm blind, but I can't see where I dehumanize or demonize anyone. Please, don't put words in my mouth, I have a hard enough time defending what I actually do write.

If you refer to where I say that illegals are drain on our social systems or where I say that illegals being here DO infringe on our rights, then I can't help you there, those are simple facts, whether you agree with them or not.

And I happen to know, first hand, that, for the most part, the illegal aliens ARE indeed good people (like you said) who are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. My question to them and you is: Why can't they do it legally?? As I mentioned in my first post, my mother is Mexican and she immigrated legally. Her mother and her brothers and sisters also immigrated here legally. They have jobs, they pay taxes and have stayed out of legal troubles. No one has a problem with them being here.



I'm sorry, I NEVER once said that the life of an illegal is a paradise. Once again you're trying to put words in my mouth. In fact, I imagine it does suck to be constantly afraid of deportation, not being able to go to the hospital for fear of being "outed", or being jailed for being here illegaly (not that that is really happening all that much or we wouldn't be having this discussion), so again, why don't they do it legally and remove such obstacles and worries?

And while not a "government money funded paradise", it's well documented that illegal aliens do get access to certain funds and services that you or I as legal, tax-paying citizens are not equally entitled to. How is that right? Justify that to me if you can.



I agree that throwing these people in jail is not the answer, but I hate to break it to you... by definition illegal aliens are already criminals (that's probably why the word "Illegal" is used to describe them ).

Regardless of how you want to paint it, or justify it, the fact remains that when someone enters our country illegaly, they have broken our laws (whether you agree with them or not they are still the law of the land) and are therefore, at least technically, "criminals", ie., "someone who has committed (or been legally convicted of) a crime.



No, sadly, I think it's you who doesn't have a clue and your attempts to put words in my mouth, not once, but twice, to try to make me look like some rabid anti-immigrant proponent lend weight to that assertion.

Looks like I got a bit more personal that I had intended, I am sorry for that Valerius, I had not intended that. I had origionally written out a very long responce to your origional post but I dumped it as it was basicly a flame. The reason I say that you demonise and dehumanise is the repeated tendancy for you to describe illegals as low life welfare cheats, robbing them of the in general basic want of each illegal I have known, the chance to work for a better life. They are not looking for a hand out, just a chance.

"Why bother? Just sneak in, don't get caught for a few years and they'll just grant you amnesty. Meanwhile, make sure to take advantage of the welfare system, our schools, and oh by the way, did you know that as an illegal immigrant, some states will give you a free education? Just make sure you don't become a legal citizen while getting your education because then you'll have to pay it back, see, they don't offer this free tuition to the legal citizens."

"Yeah, I hope he's great at that, because once the system gets overwhelmed by all the illegals getting goods and services on the goverment dollar, themselves never having contributed to the system, then they'll really need those "budgeting" skills to help them with that. And if you think I'm just blowing smoke, look at what happened to Germany after the wall came down and millions of Eastern Germans who had never contributed to the system were now all of sudden claiming goods and services from the system."

Dehumanised and Demonised, in my opinion. As a continuation of that trend of dehumanisation and demonisation where you have basicly said that these people are only here to live off government grants and welfare, ie the government funded paradise. While not your words exactly this is what I took them to mean.

As for the small and I will repeat here small benefits that an illegal may seem to have over a citizen, we as a forward thinking society have agreed in principle that all people have the right to a certain base level of exsistance. All people should have the right to read and write their own name. Their lives are so shit that it is just and right for us to help them a little. It's not like we are giving them palacial mansions and a easy life. We are giving their children the chance to read and write and maybe go to college, something that they probably never would have had the oppertunity to do, and wouldn't have the oppertuity to do for generations. Perhaps some basic medical care to ensure they don't die of something like Pink Eye which is a laughable disease to the White Western World. Yes this does take some tax money away from the Citizens but the cause is noble and the cause is just and the illegals really do not get that much.

This is not like Germany because we are not annexing Mexico, the few illegals that are trying to steal from the system are already here and they are a seperate issue to those that are trying to make a better life, those that would rape the system should be put in jail for those offences not for the offence of having the poor luck to be born on the wrong side of an arbitrary border.

And what ever happened to

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!!

But again Valerius while I vehemenently oppose your view, I do appologise for any personal insult or injury and I hope that I have explained well what I thought of your words.

[Valerius]

Citizenship is privelge, not a right...

First comes the citizenship, THEN come the rights...


Also, a little factoid to chew on - and this is not a condemnation of the 11 million people here illegaly as a whole, just an illustration showing that our system is broke and that we need to fix it...

Nearly 100,000 illegal immigrants are criminals and have been convicted.. that’s right convicted of rape, murder, drug dealing and child molestation.


Whatever happened to good ole deportation? Not even for captured and convicted child molesters, rapists or muderers?

[Razorwire]

100,000/11,000,000 = less than 1 percent. Got the stats for Citizens?

[Valerius]

No harm intended or taken Razor, I don't take these "debates" personally, I just respond in kind sometimes, my apologies as well for that.

However, back to the fray ...

Originally Posted by Razorwire

The reason I say that you demonise and dehumanise is the repeated tendancy for you to describe illegals as low life welfare cheats, robbing them of the in general basic want of each illegal I have known, the chance to work for a better life.

I beg to differ on that. While I do argue that illegal aliens are a drain on our resources, I never once called them "low lifes" or "cheats". Those are strictly, once again, your words, that you are trying to attribute to me in an effort to make me look like a bigot or intolerant. The problem still remains that they are collecting from a system that they haven't put into. It's bound to have dire effects. It's a mathematical fact. The fact is that by simply being here illegaly, before even applying for one red cent of welfare money, they are costing you and I, the taxpayer, billions of dollars in failed bureaucratic attempts to control the situation. And that's just one of the costs. And yes, I know and AGREE with you that they are trying to better their lives.. and I don't begrudge anyone that want or desire... if you re-read the posts, you'll notice that I haven't argued that point with you at all... what I HAVE argued against is their METHOD. It's illegal Razor. Why is it so WRONG of me, to want them to go through the same channels that millions of other immigrants have gone through. How is that dehumanizing bro? In fact, let me throw this at you... Wouldn't you say that by granting illegal aliens amnesty we are bascially spitting in the face of all the other immigrants that took the time an effort to become a legal citizen of the U.S.? Isn't that a better example of "dehumanizing" someone? My wife, who had to go through all the legal channels to become an American sure thinks so. She's pissed, and deservedly so I think...

Originally Posted by Razorwire

As for the small and I will repeat here small benefits that an illegal may seem to have over a citizen, we as a forward thinking society have agreed in principle that all people have the right to a certain base level of exsistance.

Ok, tell that to our poorest legal citizens who live in similar if not worst conditions (projects, homeless, etc..) I'm sure they would jump up and down for joy if they were entitled to those "small" benefits that the illegal citizen enjoys but is denied to them, the legal citizen.

Originally Posted by Razorwire

All people should have the right to read and write their own name. Their lives are so shit that it is just and right for us to help them a little.

Ok, first off, I don't agree that it's a right of anyone to read and write, like you put it. I will agree, howevere, that it's the right of any American citizen to have the OPPORTUNITY to LEARN to read and write, I'll go as far as that. This leads to another subject of much debate... do they have the right to learn to read and write in Spanish (to stay with one ethnic group) or should they conform to their adopted country's language, since after all they are planning on living and working here. I mean, it could only benefit them in their quest for a better life as you put it, and if that is all they are after (a better life) then doesn't it make sense to learn English? Call me crazy, but if moved to another country, I wouldn't expect them to cater to me in my native tongue, but rather I would attempt to at least learn enough of the language to get along.
Second, while YOU may think it's right (morally, I assume) to help these folks out, that may or may not be my (or other peoples) take on the situation. Therefore I would like the right to abstain from "donating" to "the cause" and not be forced into "donating" with my tax dollars to support an illegal institution.

Originally Posted by Razorwire

We are giving their children the chance to read and write and maybe go to college, something that they probably never would have had the oppertunity to do, and wouldn't have the oppertuity to do for generations.

How bout we give some of our legal citizens the same opportunities there Razor? There are plenty of legal citizens who haven't been able to afford the same college education for generations... that same college education that you want to "give" to illegals. I mean come on guy, you've been lucky enough (I'm assuming) to provide for your own education and so therefore haven't had to rely on grants or a limited pool of funds to further your education. Wouldn't you be more than a little upset to find out that the money and therefore your future, that had been there for you, a legal, tax-paying citizen, was now allocated to an illegal alien and denied to you?

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Perhaps some basic medical care to ensure they don't die of something like Pink Eye which is a laughable disease to the White Western World.

In this I think we can agree. No matter your legal status, urgent medical care should not be denied anyone.

Originally Posted by Razorwire

Yes this does take some tax money away from the Citizens but the cause is noble and the cause is just and the illegals really do not get that much.

Yes, it does, and lots of it. And it also takes some of your rights away as well. However, I don't find the enablement of illegal immigration a noble cause, nor do I find the results as having anything to do with justice.

[Valerius]

Originally Posted by Razorwire

100,000/11,000,000 = less than 1 percent. Got the stats for Citizens?

No. But the numbers aren't the point Razor (although I had a feeling you would go there), the point is that we have 100,000 convicted felons who are illegally here. As I understand it, the law calls for deportation of such people, and yet it's not happening. I call that broken.

Out of curiosity, do you support the deportation of illegal aliens that have committed a crime, especially such heinous crimes as rape, murder and child molestation?

[Raijyn]

Razor, I understand what you and Sev are talking about, but it just isnt feasible in todays world. From what I read, you believe we should call off all borders and allow anyone and everyone in to the US, and hope that they conform to a set of rules that they have not signed. If you want to go game-ology to this, imagine if some people were allowed to play an MMO like WoW or Vanguard:SoH WITHOUT signing the EULA, which allows them to get away with just about anything because they didnt "sign" it. While they could still get in trouble, a good lawyer could say that since they never acknoledged it as a law or that it was unlawful, they cant be tried for it.

Also, I agree with Val, that if you just let everyone in without care, isnt that just saying to the MILLIONS of legal immigrants coming in that all their hard work was for nothing? Do you want to explain it to these people that the years they studied and worked their asses off for was for naught, that it simply would have been easier to forgo anything like legality?

Another thing, and this is to both Razor and Val, the issue isnt about immigration, or the fact some of it is illegal, its the fact that people and being taken advantage of, and that is my BIGGEST problem with this whole issue. On one hand, the illegals and taking advantage of security holes in the US to eek out a living whereever they feel like. While I dont completely have a problem with this, its the way they do it. Some have a baby in the US only to make sure they are given citizenship to take care of the child.

The other side of the coin is that American businesses are taking advantage of the illegals for cheap labor-(read slaves) Most of the time, the companies will pay them under handed, meaning no taxes are taken out of it, which means that all of America suffers from this. But thats not all, because the illegals will work for SO much less than the standard minimum wage, companies can save millions by hiring these illegals, instead of worrying about american citizens which request a much higher wage, plus taxes.

So now we have the real problem: Because illegals will work for so much less, they are hired first and foremost, and American citizens that ask for more money for the same amount of work, are left jobless. This is a big problem now and will only escalate, as more and more illegals fill the jobs that companies dont want to pay more money for, more American citizens are stuck homeless, jobless and lost because they can simply not compete with the illegal immigrants.

So let me ask you Razor and Sev a question, if an illegal immigrants came into your respective working places and said that they will do your job just as good, but at half the wage, you darn well know that your company will kick you out as soon as it could, because in a capitalistic society, its all about money.

So how do we stop this? A few things, one make all illegals that are now in the US legal, and REQUIRE that all companies adhere to a minimum wage, and then BAN illegals from coming in, allowing for the economy to flourish. Or just get rid of the minimum wage all together and make american citizens prime targets again becuase they would be allowed to work for pennies a day and could'nt complain.

Since you two (Razor and Sev) have outwardly said that Option 1 is HORRIBLE and can not happen, the only way for this to get fixed is to remove minimum wage altogether. And of course that would mean you'd have to change the living habits of millions, and of course you couldnt have too many worker rights and well it goes on and on.

In general, Im not saying Illegals and evil and cruel or heartless creatures that need to be exterminated from out shores, but all Im saying is that its never as easy as you want it in life. Change one thing, and thousands of other stuff fall apart. Besides, if they truly loved the US as much as they claim, why are they so adamant about not getting citizenship?

[Razorwire]

Originally Posted by Valerius

No. But the numbers aren't the point Razor (although I had a feeling you would go there), the point is that we have 100,000 convicted felons who are illegally here. As I understand it, the law calls for deportation of such people, and yet it's not happening. I call that broken.

Out of curiosity, do you support the deportation of illegal aliens that have committed a crime, especially such heinous crimes as rape, murder and child molestation?

No I believe that they should be shot, anyone that molests a child should get the death sentance. Rapists should be castrated and Murderers killed. I'm not a hippy, cost to the state less than a dollar for the bullet and a little more for creamation and ceremoniless dumping

but the numbers are the point, when you bring up the criminal element of the illegals (being an illegal does not make you a hardened crim or we would have to label speeders as crims, I did some shop lifting back in high school does that make me evil?) Less than 1% of the people that are coming accross the border are doing these things and that IS the point. We both agree that the situation is broken, but making it a federal crime is not the anwser.

[Razorwire]

Originally Posted by Raijyn

Stuff

I think a great part of the problem with our society is that we are a capitolist society were the bottom line is the only thing that matters. Money is not my god, social responcibility > money.

As for the rest of it, yes they are here illegally and no that is not right. But criminalising them is not the anwser, taking away what few things they have is not the anwser. Proper border controls and allowing for a migrant work force, is the correct anwser. Again it is not their fault that the living conditions in Mexico and other south American countries is so crap that they are willing to risk their very lives to come here and work for a dollar an hour, but that is partially ours (I am not saying that it is your fault but the US governmant has been particularly naughty in regards to Latin America and kept things destablised for decades).

[Raijyn]

Ok well, as far as I know the people that are protesting now about the laws against illegal immigrants also want an even more laxed border control. Correct me if im wrong though, I cant find a link to support or unsupport that, but from what Ive heard about in the news, one of the things that would have gone in the bill against Illegals is a more focused control of the US/Mexican border, and this was one of many things that were accused of snuffing the rights of illegal immigrants.

Also your: "Money is not my god, social responcibility > money" axim is all well and good, but what happens if you loose everything, your job, house, car, and forced to find food on the street? Can you say with 100% certainty that your veiw in life will be different? If not I commend you, but most people in this planet would have a completely different veiw of this. I always go back to the instance when an Avid Anti-Death Penalty man who would stake his life on never allowing a death penalty to go through completely changed his tone to Pro-Death Penalty, when he found his daughter murdered.

All Im saying is that you can afford having these veiws because this situation has never affected you personally; its like discussing things happening in a different country, its just distant from you, allowing a certain amount of freedom to scream and yell at those who would take advantage of the poor and meak, without realising that not everything is at it seems, and the poor and meak arnt always the good guys.

[Raijyn]

Originally Posted by Razorwire

We both agree that the situation is broken, but making it a federal crime is not the anwser.

The problem isnt about making it a federal crime to BE an illegal, its making it a crime to HELP an illegal immigrant, that includes giving them work, food, shelter, education, health care, transportation, etc. This is what you and Sev have said are so evil. And as Ive already said, the problem isnt about giving them selter or care, its about the companies willing to hire them instead of american citizens. So were right back where we started: You two want any illegal to go in to a job and be allowed to work for pennies a day, which would kick out hard working americans who still have to pay taxes on wages. This produces a desirable affect: Prices on most goods remain low, helping out the economy, well for the short-term anyways. But as you continue with this, the amount of citizens without jobs will continue to increase, requiring for the government to help pay for them (Unless you dont beleive in welfare either) which costs the government far more than if they just allowed the citizens to get jobs in the first place.

Also, one question for you all. If they love the United States SO VERY MUCH, should they be required to defend her? Think about it, if a country actually did attack the mainland, should we allow or even require any illegal immigrant to join the military? Or are they simply the "day workers" that have no affiliation at all with the US in general and really only come up here because its better than Mexico.