joedirt 0
Recommended Posts
Richards 0
QuoteAlso, I am strictly talking about ILLEGAL aliens not legal immigrants. I wish, you could get that straight!!!
In my experience it is not an accident when someone confuses the two. They usually know exactly what you are saying. When debating illegal immigration, the easiest approach for the pro side is to confuse the issue between illegal and legal immigrants. This accomplishes two things;
1: By detailing the contributions of legal immigrants they can justify illegal immigrants by attributing the gains from legal immigrants to illegals.
2: By constantly blurring the distinction between legal and illegal it is easier to paint you as anti-immigrant and shoot down your arguments thus putting you on the defensive.
You can make the distinction a thousand times yet to no avail. This is how the straw man argument becomes so effective in this case.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
bexren76 0
Well I don't know claim to know a great deal about history but you are probably right since I think the theory goes that the Native Americans crossed the Bering (if that's how you spell it) Straits to get there in the first place when they were frozen (that the Straits as opposed to the Native Americans!) - feel free to correct me. But in any event, the point I was making was that some people seem to think that because they are pissed off with a policy it is therefore ok to be pissed off with the people as a group because they are not "us." It's a bad, ignorant place to go and achieves nothing.
kallend 1,621
QuoteIf you think those of us who were born in North America are immigrants, then so too were the "Native Americans" whom "we" stole this land from.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?username=joedirt;
Who is "we", Mr. No Name Entered? For all I know you could be an illegal Guatemalan pea picker.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Richards 0
QuoteNo you don't.
Uuhhmm......to the best of my knowledge. I do.
QuoteThe burden of proof lies with the lawmaker or the law itself, if you analyze a law and find it to be completely illegitimate and you do not have the power to dismantle it, either as an individual or as a collective through direct action or protest, then you simply don't follow the law.
I've never heard of this (granted I have never studied law). If you are a lawyer I will skeptically take your word on this but if you are not, I wouldn't mind a second opinion.
QuoteUnjust laws aren’t laws, if a power structure places a ban on jumping from a spot in a remote national forest and you are not endangering anyone but yourself when breaking that law then the law is illegitimate and you can ignore it all you like.
Not trying to sound confrontational but is this legal fact or is it opinion?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
joedirt 0
See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Dirt
Of course I could be Guatemalen, and my ancestors could have stolen land from the Mayans, but people don't really bring that up when you speak Spanish
Adios
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Dirt
Of course I could be Guatemalen, and my ancestors could have stolen land from the Mayans, but people don't really bring that up when you speak Spanish
Adios
Quote
QuoteThe burden of proof lies with the lawmaker or the law itself, if you analyze a law and find it to be completely illegitimate and you do not have the power to dismantle it, either as an individual or as a collective through direct action or protest, then you simply don't follow the law.
I've never heard of this (granted I have never studied law). If you are a lawyer I will skeptically take your word on this but if you are not, I wouldn't mind a second opinion.
Law makers, policy makers, courts, lawyers, etc etc are all part of institutions of power. I am talking purely from a sociological or ethical standpoint.
The burden of proof is always on those that impose power and if they cannot prove that it is a just law or a legitimate action then it simply isn’t.
Quote
QuoteUnjust laws aren’t laws, if a power structure places a ban on jumping from a spot in a remote national forest and you are not endangering anyone but yourself when breaking that law then the law is illegitimate and you can ignore it all you like.
Not trying to sound confrontational but is this legal fact or is it opinion?
No I’m defiantly not talking from a legal standpoint, power serves its own self interests, you can’t break laws and claim they are unethical and illegitimate you will get your arse kicked within the institutions of power.
That is of course without a mass popular movement doing the same, such as the rights won in the 60s but just because a large portion of the population aren’t taking affirmative action against current laws doesn’t mean they are all legitimate.
So take anything, road rules or not murdering other people, strong cases can be made for why those are legitimate laws. Take laws in question however (and any number of others) regarding base jumping in national parks, where you are only endangering yourself, and a strong case could be made for why they are entirely illegitimate laws, especially with regards to punishment.
Everybody..this is all part of Bush's plan to blend the boundaries of America and the World so he can help form a New World Order. That's it.
No country lasts forever. Remember the Roman Empire? 300 years. That's it. America will fall someday. Will get split up, or something.
We, The People, lost the fight for America a LONG time ago...look back to 1933 and (33!!!)...and do your research.
No country lasts forever. Remember the Roman Empire? 300 years. That's it. America will fall someday. Will get split up, or something.
We, The People, lost the fight for America a LONG time ago...look back to 1933 and (33!!!)...and do your research.
dorbie 0
QuoteQuote
The U.S. runs a a $64billion trade deficit with Mexico. Now when you can explain how the flow of $64billion P.A. of trade dollars hurts the Mexican economy you'll have something to say. In addition to this there's an overall trade of around $200billion P.A. which generates Mexican jobs. This also ignores straight cash transfers from U.S. resident citizens which could push the deficit to $100 billion. You've really got a nerve saying anyone knows less than you about free trade as you ignore the hard evidence.
Yes the hard evidence was in a long time ago and you see it in all countries that enter into “free trade” agreements. A small part of the population win, foreign investors win and the majorities lose.
So you're saying that in addition to a massive $200 billion PA trade and a mind boggling trade surplus, Mexico has also attracted foreign investment as a result of trade agreements. Thanks for pointing that out, that's an added bonus! Most contries are desperate for foreign investment because it generates jobs, growth, wealth & economic stability.
You have to accept President John F. Kennedy's premise that a rising tide raises all boats and get over your hostility to a few big ships making a lot of money. If someone invests somewhere they expect and deserve a return, but there's enough personal benefit for everyone to make an agreement viable, like jobs vs. unemployment. For foreign investment this is doubly clear since investment brings in money & expertise that would simply go elsewhere.
QuoteQuoteQuote
The U.S. runs a a $64billion trade deficit with Mexico. Now when you can explain how the flow of $64billion P.A. of trade dollars hurts the Mexican economy you'll have something to say. In addition to this there's an overall trade of around $200billion P.A. which generates Mexican jobs. This also ignores straight cash transfers from U.S. resident citizens which could push the deficit to $100 billion. You've really got a nerve saying anyone knows less than you about free trade as you ignore the hard evidence.
Yes the hard evidence was in a long time ago and you see it in all countries that enter into “free trade” agreements. A small part of the population win, foreign investors win and the majorities lose.
So you're saying that in addition to a massive $200 billion PA trade and a mind boggling trade surplus, Mexico has also attracted foreign investment as a result of trade agreements. Thanks for pointing that out, that's an added bonus! Most contries are desperate for foreign investment because it generates jobs, growth, wealth & economic stability.
You have to accept President John F. Kennedy's premise that a rising tide raises all boats and get over your hostility to a few big ships making a lot of money. If someone invests somewhere they expect and deserve a return, but there's enough personal benefit for everyone to make an agreement viable, like jobs vs. unemployment. For foreign investment this is doubly clear since investment brings in money & expertise that would simply go elsewhere.
Thankyou for the Chicago school slash neo-liberal bullshit rhetoric but maybe you should investigate the reasons why the majority of the planet are against US "free" trade agreements... but I guess the global population are wrong in this and rich white men are right, whoops my bad, keep on rising tide you are taking us all with you, haha.
Quote
The problem is, illegals get 'phony' papers and go for the higher paying assembly-line, construction jobs.
And I don't see how it is proposed to be prevented.
Quote
Social Security numbers, can be checked-out. The problem there is, it is 'costly' for employers to do so.
There is basically no reason for employers to do so, unless they run background check on a person. The law does not require them to validate SSNs, so they do not.
Quote
Back in the 70's and '80's, we were short on Patrol Agents but, 'raids' still took place.
The raids raise more questions than answers. How could they qualify legal immigrants vs illegal during the raid? I don't think they have passports with them. And how did they justify the raid - or they just go to any business they want (or do not like)?
Quote
By cutting welfare benefits to 2nd. & 3rd. generation welfare recipients, they could do some of the grape picking.
Or some crimes.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *
Ya know, just got back from lunch..and here we are arguing over all of this AND I am spending time typing this...and GUESS WHAT!!???
illegals are still crossing the borders as WE SPEAK!!!
illegals are still crossing the borders as WE SPEAK!!!
dorbie 0
Quote
Thankyou for the Chicago school slash neo-liberal bullshit rhetoric but maybe you should investigate the reasons why the majority of the planet are against US "free" trade agreements... but I guess the global population are wrong in this and rich white men are right, whoops my bad, keep on rising tide you are taking us all with you, haha.
The argument from polularity is a logical fallacy and it's not even true in this case. You're kind of anecdotal rhetoric is the reason some people object to free trade agreements, BUT only a self destructive fool would say no to a free trade agreement that delivered a $69 billion trade surplus. I guess some people just like debt, unemployment & poverty and the bounty they bestow.
You've been struggling ever since you learned that Mexico turns a healthy ~$70billion trade surplus with the US. That pretty much devastates your earlier claims, now you're left railing against capitalism, without a viable alternative.
QuoteCut welfare to 2nd. and 3rd. generation recipients.
Does this include cutting welfare to all of the American citizens that are descendants of people who illegally sought refuge here during world war 2 or even before, or just mexicans coming over the border in the last few years that this has become a hot-topic issue?
Quote
By detailing the contributions of legal immigrants they can justify illegal immigrants by attributing the gains from legal immigrants to illegals.
The distinction between legal and illegal immigrants is arbitrary. For that reason it is not particularly relevant to the discussion. This is demonstrated by the majority of American history, during which there was scant distinction between legal and illegal immigrants as we purport exists today. Hardly anyone was turned away-- mainly people carrying overt communicable diseases, and people with extensive criminal backgrounds.
In fact, it is broadly anti-immigrant to harp on the distinction between so-called illegal and legal immigrants, because it betrays ignorance for the causes and demographics of immigration.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
QuoteQuoteAlso, I am strictly talking about ILLEGAL aliens not legal immigrants. I wish, you could get that straight!!!
In my experience it is not an accident when someone confuses the two. They usually know exactly what you are saying. When debating illegal immigration, the easiest approach for the pro side is to confuse the issue between illegal and legal immigrants. This accomplishes two things;
1: By detailing the contributions of legal immigrants they can justify illegal immigrants by attributing the gains from legal immigrants to illegals.
2: By constantly blurring the distinction between legal and illegal it is easier to paint you as anti-immigrant and shoot down your arguments thus putting you on the defensive.
You can make the distinction a thousand times yet to no avail. This is how the straw man argument becomes so effective in this case.
_________________________________
Thank you, for that. I really do appreciate it. Well said!
Chuck
QuoteQuote
The problem is, illegals get 'phony' papers and go for the higher paying assembly-line, construction jobs.
And I don't see how it is proposed to be prevented.Quote
Social Security numbers, can be checked-out. The problem there is, it is 'costly' for employers to do so.
There is basically no reason for employers to do so, unless they run background check on a person. The law does not require them to validate SSNs, so they do not.Quote
Back in the 70's and '80's, we were short on Patrol Agents but, 'raids' still took place.
The raids raise more questions than answers. How could they qualify legal immigrants vs illegal during the raid? I don't think they have passports with them. And how did they justify the raid - or they just go to any business they want (or do not like)?Quote
By cutting welfare benefits to 2nd. & 3rd. generation welfare recipients, they could do some of the grape picking.
Or some crimes.
_____________________________________
O.K.
Chuck
QuoteQuoteCut welfare to 2nd. and 3rd. generation recipients.
Does this include cutting welfare to all of the American citizens that are descendants of people who illegally sought refuge here during world war 2 or even before, or just mexicans coming over the border in the last few years that this has become a hot-topic issue?
______________________________________
Whoever has been drawing welfare all their lives when they are perfectly able to work!
Chuck
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhich, ironically, makes them more like us than unlike us.
I have never in my life made demands that a government accomodate me while breaking a law. For that matter I do not break the law (to the best of my knowledge).
When have you demanded accomodation for illegal activity?
So you never tried to talk your way out of a speeding ticket?LOL. I have to do just that in front of the judge next month. Actually had a nice cop for once. He did lie and say I was doing 95 mph in a 65. My truck is lucky to do 85
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Amen. Ask the Brits on that one too!QuoteEverybody..this is all part of Bush's plan to blend the boundaries of America and the World so he can help form a New World Order. That's it.
No country lasts forever. Remember the Roman Empire? 300 years. That's it. America will fall someday. Will get split up, or something.
We, The People, lost the fight for America a LONG time ago...look back to 1933 and (33!!!)...and do your research.
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Here's a good little read for you guys/gals.>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070430/greider
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
Please tell me what America would be like with no mexicans? Who will take all they jobs that they do? Not to many people. Lets go to the slums and get all the black males between 18-55 that are on welfare, send them to iraq, they get $$$ for nothing. Now that sucks.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites