Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan Works Act of 2008
I actually don't recall what position I was endorsing when I attempted to summarize our discussion of HR #5889 in an e-mail to our former mayor and fifth district rep, but here's his reply ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Congressman Emanuel Cleaver Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM Subject: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver To: davidnicol@gmail.com Dear David: Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 5889, the Orphan Works Act of 2008. I appreciate hearing your thoughts about this important issue. As you may know, under current copyright law, using a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner can subject a user to considerable civil liability. Using a copyrighted work in one of the proscribed ways requires permission from the copyright owner and sometimes payment for the use. But if the copyright owner cannot be found, the work typically lies unused out of concern for the penalties that could be imposed if the copyright owner surfaced after use has begun. Consequently, large amounts of copyrighted works - written texts, photographs, sound recordings, video tracts, and much more - are held in libraries, museums, archives and elsewhere, unused and largely inaccessible to the public. The Orphan Works Act of 2008 would limit the remedies in a civil action on copyright infringement of a work whose creator cannot be identified or located. These orphan works are defined as any copyrighted work whose creator cannot be found after a reasonably diligent search. H.R. 5889 would establish a publicly available electronic database of all protected pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Although I believe the public could benefit from access to more works, we should not sacrifice the fundamental right of an artist to his or her work. Currently, H.R. 5889 is pending consideration in the House Committee on the Judiciary. If this bill should come to the floor for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of further assistance. Also, I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/cleaver, where you can sign up for my electronic newsletter and receive updates on my latest activities as your Representative. Sincerely Emanuel Cleaver, II Member of Congress
I've emailed our esteemed Representative several times about various issues. His support for illegal aliens, high gas prices and the Socialist (oops, Democrats) refusal to do anything, grand theft in the form of taxes that he supports and wants to increase, etc. In my humble opinion he needs to be replaced during the next election. The man was a horrible Mayor and an even worse Congressman. His goal is a Socialist government that will control every aspect of our lives (and he's running it, of course). Not exactly "open source" philosophy. David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote: I actually don't recall what position I was endorsing when I attempted to summarize our discussion of HR #5889 in an e-mail to our former mayor and fifth district rep, but here's his reply ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Congressman Emanuel Cleaver Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM Subject: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver To: davidnicol@gmail.com Dear David: Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 5889, the Orphan Works Act of 2008. I appreciate hearing your thoughts about this important issue. As you may know, under current copyright law, using a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner can subject a user to considerable civil liability. Using a copyrighted work in one of the proscribed ways requires permission from the copyright owner and sometimes payment for the use. But if the copyright owner cannot be found, the work typically lies unused out of concern for the penalties that could be imposed if the copyright owner surfaced after use has begun. Consequently, large amounts of copyrighted works - written texts, photographs, sound recordings, video tracts, and much more - are held in libraries, museums, archives and elsewhere, unused and largely inaccessible to the public. The Orphan Works Act of 2008 would limit the remedies in a civil action on copyright infringement of a work whose creator cannot be identified or located. These orphan works are defined as any copyrighted work whose creator cannot be found after a reasonably diligent search. H.R. 5889 would establish a publicly available electronic database of all protected pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Although I believe the public could benefit from access to more works, we should not sacrifice the fundamental right of an artist to his or her work. Currently, H.R. 5889 is pending consideration in the House Committee on the Judiciary. If this bill should come to the floor for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of further assistance. Also, I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/cleaver, where you can sign up for my electronic newsletter and receive updates on my latest activities as your Representative. Sincerely Emanuel Cleaver, II Member of Congress _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Dude, James, you are way OT. Not only that, but your statements are those of far right wing talking points that have very little to do with reality. You need less Rush Limbaugh and more reality. Thanks, David, for a relevant topic that does concern the open source movement. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, James Sissel <jimsissel@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've emailed our esteemed Representative several times about various issues. His support for illegal aliens, high gas prices and the Socialist (oops, Democrats) refusal to do anything, grand theft in the form of taxes that he supports and wants to increase, etc. In my humble opinion he needs to be replaced during the next election. The man was a horrible Mayor and an even worse Congressman. His goal is a Socialist government that will control every aspect of our lives (and he's running it, of course). Not exactly "open source" philosophy.
*David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com>* wrote:
I actually don't recall what position I was endorsing when I attempted to summarize our discussion of HR #5889 in an e-mail to our former mayor and fifth district rep, but here's his reply
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Congressman Emanuel Cleaver Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM Subject: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver To: davidnicol@gmail.com
Dear David:
Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 5889, the Orphan Works Act of 2008. I appreciate hearing your thoughts about this important issue.
As you may know, under current copyright law, using a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner can subject a user to considerable civil liability. Using a copyrighted work in one of the proscribed ways requires permission from the copyright owner and sometimes payment for the use. But if the copyright owner cannot be found, the work typically lies unused out of concern for the penalties that could be imposed if the copyright owner surfaced after use has begun. Consequently, large amounts of copyrighted works - written texts, photographs, sound recordings, video tracts, and much more - are held in libraries, museums, archives and elsewhere, unused and largely inaccessible to the public.
The Orphan Works Act of 2008 would limit the remedies in a civil action on copyright infringement of a work whose creator cannot be identified or located. These orphan works are defined as any copyrighted work whose creator cannot be found after a reasonably diligent search. H.R. 5889 would establish a publicly available electronic database of all protected pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. Although I believe the public could benefit from access to more works, we should not sacrifice the fundamental right of an artist to his or her work. Currently, H.R. 5889 is pending consideration in the House Committee on the Judiciary. If this bill should come to the floor for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I may be of further assistance. Also, I encourage you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/cleaver, where you can sign up for my electronic newsletter and receive updates on my latest activities as your Representative.
Sincerely
Emanuel Cleaver, II
Member of Congress _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
_______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Tuesday 12 August 2008, Jim Herrmann wrote:
Dude, James, you are way OT. Not only that, but your statements are those of far right wing talking points that have very little to do with reality. You need less Rush Limbaugh and more reality.
Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.
On Tuesday 12 August 2008, David Nicol wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.
Luke dashJunior is a geocentrist.
Better than a liberal.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008, David Nicol wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.
Luke dashJunior is a geocentrist.
Better than a liberal.
As long as no weiners are going into any butts. Unless, of course, a man accidentally inserts his weiner into his wife's butt while trying to procreate good little Christian children. Then it's ok. -- Chris
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 12 August 2008, David Nicol wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.
Luke dashJunior is a geocentrist.
Better than a liberal.
the defense rests
Your mom goes to college... -----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Luke -Jr Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:08 PM To: David Nicol Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksAct of 2008 On Tuesday 12 August 2008, David Nicol wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
Rush Limbaugh is a liberal.
Luke dashJunior is a geocentrist.
Better than a liberal.
Espero que no usas GNOME, que fue escrito por los mexicanos, después de todo! Espero que algún día la gente pueda superar su racismo hacia hispanos. Jeffrey. P.S. By the way, this is a Linux list. Just in case you've forgotten. Good luck in November. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, James Sissel <jimsissel@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've emailed our esteemed Representative several times about various issues. His support for illegal aliens, high gas prices and the Socialist (oops, Democrats) refusal to do anything, grand theft in the form of taxes that he supports and wants to increase, etc. In my humble opinion he needs to be replaced during the next election. The man was a horrible Mayor and an even worse Congressman. His goal is a Socialist government that will control every aspect of our lives (and he's running it, of course). Not exactly "open source" philosophy.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Is "Mein Kampf" an orphan work? Godwin for the win?
As a thread continues, the probability of someone mentioning Brian Warnock approaches 1.
--- On Tue, 8/12/08, Oren Beck <orenbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
Is "Mein Kampf" an orphan work?
Nope. All the copyright owners are known (at least concerning U.S. Copyright Law). German copyright: the government of Bavaria, which bans its printing and is somewhat annoyed that the U.S. government thinks there is an: American English copyright: Houghton Mifflin (originally seized by the U.S. government right after WWII, then bought by Houghton Mifflin in 1979). In Sweden the book is legally in the public domain (a court case decision put it there). The German copyright will expire in 2015, and there is a push for an annotated version to counter what will likely be a massive public domain reprinting of the original work by neo-Nazi groups.
Really? The Mexicans wrote GNOME? I didn't know that. The comment about support for illegal aliens might be construed as racist but, I think it is just paranoia about losing a low paying job that nobody else in the US wants to do anyways. From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Watts Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:52 PM To: James Sissel Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksAct of 2008 Espero que no usas GNOME, que fue escrito por los mexicanos, después de todo! Espero que algún día la gente pueda superar su racismo hacia hispanos. Jeffrey. P.S. By the way, this is a Linux list. Just in case you've forgotten. Good luck in November. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, James Sissel <jimsissel@yahoo.com> wrote: I've emailed our esteemed Representative several times about various issues. His support for illegal aliens, high gas prices and the Socialist (oops, Democrats) refusal to do anything, grand theft in the form of taxes that he supports and wants to increase, etc. In my humble opinion he needs to be replaced during the next election. The man was a horrible Mayor and an even worse Congressman. His goal is a Socialist government that will control every aspect of our lives (and he's running it, of course). Not exactly "open source" philosophy. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Not to be political, but the key part of the phrase is "illegal". If a person is not in a country legally, then they should have a different set of expectations about how the society they've invaded will react to them. An illegal alien from any country cannot expect to receive the same benefits as a legal immigrant or a natural citizen. Por exemplo, I cannot go to Mexico for anything longer than a brief visit, although a visa may not be required. And the US requires some proof of citizenship upon reentry. I can drive to Canada and visit briefly, but cannot work there without a work visa. If I want medical care while I'm there, I believe it is emergency treatment only and I'd have to return to the states to get my insurance to cover procedures. Follow the laws and its not such a bog deal. Someday, we may be able to come and go between all countries and live and work where we please, crossing borders pell-mell, but for now there are many reasons for the laws in place in each country governing the comings and goings of people. Brian Kelsay ________________________________ From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Phil Thayer Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:09 PM To: watts@jayhawks.net; James Sissel Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: RE: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksActof 2008 Really? The Mexicans wrote GNOME? I didn't know that. The comment about support for illegal aliens might be construed as racist but, I think it is just paranoia about losing a low paying job that nobody else in the US wants to do anyways. From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Watts Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:52 PM To: James Sissel Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksAct of 2008 Espero que no usas GNOME, que fue escrito por los mexicanos, después de todo! Espero que algún día la gente pueda superar su racismo hacia hispanos. Jeffrey. P.S. By the way, this is a Linux list. Just in case you've forgotten. Good luck in November. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, James Sissel <jimsissel@yahoo.com> wrote: I've emailed our esteemed Representative several times about various issues. His support for illegal aliens, high gas prices and the Socialist (oops, Democrats) refusal to do anything, grand theft in the form of taxes that he supports and wants to increase, etc. In my humble opinion he needs to be replaced during the next election. The man was a horrible Mayor and an even worse Congressman. His goal is a Socialist government that will control every aspect of our lives (and he's running it, of course). Not exactly "open source" philosophy.
I agree with you. However, when the procedure to become legal becomes so cumbersome that a person's family may starve or otherwise not survive, then it becomes a necessity to them. At the same time there are jobs here that due to the type of work it is and the pay scale nobody is willing to take except the people who are desperate enough to put their lives at risk to come here and work them. The combination of these two elements mean one of two things will happen. Either we will have a continuing influx of illegal aliens doing the work that nobody else wants to do or the jobs that nobody else wants to do will be moved overseas and everyone will be mad about jobs moving overseas. At least of the illegal aliens are here in the US working they will be paying taxes just like we do. If the jobs go overseas we will not have that tax revenue and all of our taxes will go up. Phil From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:19 PM To: kclug@kclug.org Subject: RE: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning OrphanWorksActof 2008 Not to be political, but the key part of the phrase is "illegal". If a person is not in a country legally, then they should have a different set of expectations about how the society they've invaded will react to them. An illegal alien from any country cannot expect to receive the same benefits as a legal immigrant or a natural citizen. Por exemplo, I cannot go to Mexico for anything longer than a brief visit, although a visa may not be required. And the US requires some proof of citizenship upon reentry. I can drive to Canada and visit briefly, but cannot work there without a work visa. If I want medical care while I'm there, I believe it is emergency treatment only and I'd have to return to the states to get my insurance to cover procedures. Follow the laws and its not such a bog deal. Someday, we may be able to come and go between all countries and live and work where we please, crossing borders pell-mell, but for now there are many reasons for the laws in place in each country governing the comings and goings of people. Brian Kelsay ________________________________ From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Phil Thayer Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:09 PM To: watts@jayhawks.net; James Sissel Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: RE: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksActof 2008 Really? The Mexicans wrote GNOME? I didn't know that. The comment about support for illegal aliens might be construed as racist but, I think it is just paranoia about losing a low paying job that nobody else in the US wants to do anyways. From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Watts Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 1:52 PM To: James Sissel Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksAct of 2008 Espero que no usas GNOME, que fue escrito por los mexicanos, después de todo! Espero que algún día la gente pueda superar su racismo hacia hispanos. Jeffrey. P.S. By the way, this is a Linux list. Just in case you've forgotten. Good luck in November. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, James Sissel <jimsissel@yahoo.com> wrote: I've emailed our esteemed Representative several times about various issues. His support for illegal aliens, high gas prices and the Socialist (oops, Democrats) refusal to do anything, grand theft in the form of taxes that he supports and wants to increase, etc. In my humble opinion he needs to be replaced during the next election. The man was a horrible Mayor and an even worse Congressman. His goal is a Socialist government that will control every aspect of our lives (and he's running it, of course). Not exactly "open source" philosophy.
Brian, I'm assuming from your name that you're not Native American (the modern usage). How did your forefathers come to this country? Did they get a visa from the US consulate in their country? Can you prove this? The reality is that unless one's relatives arrived after 1924 they most likely just showed up here. I get what you're saying, but the term "illegal" is overused here to imply badness or criminality on the part of the immigrants. When someone changes lanes without signaling, they're driving "illegally" but you don't hear people freaking out about that. I'm not saying it's how things should be, but I am saying it's not the big Mexican Scare that the GOP and Lou Dobbs has been selling. They're normal folks, just like us, that just want to be able to work to support their families. Instead of punishing them we ought to be addressing the real problem, which is our crappy immigration policies and an environment where employers aren't punished for violating the minimum wage, social security, and medicare laws. If there weren't sweatshops, there'd be less border-jumping. If we allowed more working class folks to immigrate, they're be less border-jumping. If we didn't have hypocritical laws such as "wet foot / dry foot" there'd be less border-jumping. You do know that illegal Cuban immigrants are given green cards? Anyhow, I do appreciate your reasoned rebuttal. I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, I'm just arguing that we need to address the source of the problem instead of the symptoms. Jeffrey On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO < brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov> wrote:
Not to be political, but the key part of the phrase is "illegal". If a person is not in a country legally, then they should have a different set of expectations about how the society they've invaded will react to them. An illegal alien from any country cannot expect to receive the same benefits as a legal immigrant or a natural citizen. Por exemplo, I cannot go to Mexico for anything longer than a brief visit, although a visa may not be required. And the US requires some proof of citizenship upon reentry. I can drive to Canada and visit briefly, but cannot work there without a work visa. If I want medical care while I'm there, I believe it is emergency treatment only and I'd have to return to the states to get my insurance to cover procedures.
Follow the laws and its not such a bog deal.
Someday, we may be able to come and go between all countries and live and work where we please, crossing borders pell-mell, but for now there are many reasons for the laws in place in each country governing the comings and goings of people.
Brian Kelsay
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Ya, I've heard that "Native American" crap too. They didn't protect their borders and look what happened to them. I don't plan on that happening to the Unites States of America. We are not going to be singing "America The Beautiful" in Spanish, French, German, or any other language than English. Call me racist or xenophobe if you wish. When logic fails name calling is the next step. The point being right now, not "pre-1924", we have laws about immigration. (Gee, I wonder why those laws were written.) And once again, for those who are too dim witted to understand, we are talking about ILLEGAL immigration and we don't care if it is North, South, East, or West. Illegal is illegal. When the burgler breaks into my house and demands I do things HIS way I have a problem with it. Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote: Brian, I'm assuming from your name that you're not Native American (the modern usage). How did your forefathers come to this country? Did they get a visa from the US consulate in their country? Can you prove this? The reality is that unless one's relatives arrived after 1924 they most likely just showed up here. I get what you're saying, but the term "illegal" is overused here to imply badness or criminality on the part of the immigrants. When someone changes lanes without signaling, they're driving "illegally" but you don't hear people freaking out about that. I'm not saying it's how things should be, but I am saying it's not the big Mexican Scare that the GOP and Lou Dobbs has been selling. They're normal folks, just like us, that just want to be able to work to support their families. Instead of punishing them we ought to be addressing the real problem, which is our crappy immigration policies and an environment where employers aren't punished for violating the minimum wage, social security, and medicare laws. If there weren't sweatshops, there'd be less border-jumping. If we allowed more working class folks to immigrate, they're be less border-jumping. If we didn't have hypocritical laws such as "wet foot / dry foot" there'd be less border-jumping. You do know that illegal Cuban immigrants are given green cards? Anyhow, I do appreciate your reasoned rebuttal. I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, I'm just arguing that we need to address the source of the problem instead of the symptoms. Jeffrey On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO <brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov> wrote: Not to be political, but the key part of the phrase is "illegal". If a person is not in a country legally, then they should have a different set of expectations about how the society they've invaded will react to them. An illegal alien from any country cannot expect to receive the same benefits as a legal immigrant or a natural citizen. Por exemplo, I cannot go to Mexico for anything longer than a brief visit, although a visa may not be required. And the US requires some proof of citizenship upon reentry. I can drive to Canada and visit briefly, but cannot work there without a work visa. If I want medical care while I'm there, I believe it is emergency treatment only and I'd have to return to the states to get my insurance to cover procedures. Follow the laws and its not such a bog deal. Someday, we may be able to come and go between all countries and live and work where we please, crossing borders pell-mell, but for now there are many reasons for the laws in place in each country governing the comings and goings of people. Brian Kelsay -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
You ignorant fool. I'm not talking about "American Indians". I'm talking about the Native American Party, also known as the Know-Nothings and the Native Americans. Please learn your history. You are a throwback, sir. And yes, from what you've said I think it's pretty accurate to call you a xenophobe and a racist. So, from what you're saying are we to deduce that indigenous Americans "failed" to protect their borders and thus they got what they deserved? I'm sure smallpox, syphilis, and muskets had nothing to do with it... They just needed to PROTECT THEIR BORDERS! LOL. Jeffrey. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM, James Sissel <jimsissel@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ya, I've heard that "Native American" crap too. They didn't protect their borders and look what happened to them. I don't plan on that happening to the Unites States of America. We are not going to be singing "America The Beautiful" in Spanish, French, German, or any other language than English. Call me racist or xenophobe if you wish. When logic fails name calling is the next step. The point being right now, not "pre-1924", we have laws about immigration. (Gee, I wonder why those laws were written.)
And once again, for those who are too dim witted to understand, we are talking about ILLEGAL immigration and we don't care if it is North, South, East, or West. Illegal is illegal. When the burgler breaks into my house and demands I do things HIS way I have a problem with it.
*Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com>* wrote:
Brian, I'm assuming from your name that you're not Native American (the modern usage). How did your forefathers come to this country? Did they get a visa from the US consulate in their country? Can you prove this? The reality is that unless one's relatives arrived after 1924 they most likely just showed up here.
I get what you're saying, but the term "illegal" is overused here to imply badness or criminality on the part of the immigrants. When someone changes lanes without signaling, they're driving "illegally" but you don't hear people freaking out about that. I'm not saying it's how things should be, but I am saying it's not the big Mexican Scare that the GOP and Lou Dobbs has been selling. They're normal folks, just like us, that just want to be able to work to support their families.
Instead of punishing them we ought to be addressing the real problem, which is our crappy immigration policies and an environment where employers aren't punished for violating the minimum wage, social security, and medicare laws. If there weren't sweatshops, there'd be less border-jumping. If we allowed more working class folks to immigrate, they're be less border-jumping. If we didn't have hypocritical laws such as "wet foot / dry foot" there'd be less border-jumping. You do know that illegal Cuban immigrants are given green cards?
Anyhow, I do appreciate your reasoned rebuttal. I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, I'm just arguing that we need to address the source of the problem instead of the symptoms.
Jeffrey
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:10 PM, James Sissel <jimsissel@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ya, I've heard that "Native American" crap too. They didn't protect their borders and look what happened to them. I don't plan on that happening to the Unites States of America. We are not going to be singing "America The Beautiful" in Spanish, French, German, or any other language than English. Call me racist or xenophobe if you wish. When logic fails name calling is the next step. The point being right now, not "pre-1924", we have laws about immigration. (Gee, I wonder why those laws were written.)
And once again, for those who are too dim witted to understand, we are talking about ILLEGAL immigration and we don't care if it is North, South, East, or West. Illegal is illegal. When the burgler breaks into my house and demands I do things HIS way I have a problem with it.
At least I'm white and speak English, eh? Here's your post in the mother tongue of my great grandparents: Ya, sam čuo da su "Indijanci" isprdak. Oni nisu zaštitili njihove granice i pogledati što se dogodilo s njima. Ne na tom planu događa na States United States States of America. Mi smo ne idući u biti pjevanja "America The Beautiful" u španjolski, francuski, njemački, ili bilo koji drugi jezik nego engleski. Call me rasističke ili xenophobe ako to želite. Kada logika ne uspije ime pozivajući se na sljedeći korak. Stvar je upravo sada, a ne "pre-1924", imamo zakone o imigraciji. (Điha, Pitam se zašto oni zakoni su pisani.) I još jednom, za one koji su previše oslabile shvaćati da shvatite, mi smo se govori o ilegalne imigracije i ne briga ako je sjever, jug, istok ili zapad. Nezakonit je ilegalan. Kada burgler pauze u moju kuću i zahtjevima mogu učiniti stvari na svoj put, imam problem s njom. This is Croatian. They were immigrants. You can suck an egg. Asshole. -- Chris
No one is illegal! The people wrongly accused of being "illegal" are more than welcome in my neighborhood and city. We need to get rid of all borders and nation states. Let people speak more than one language. Most Americans would be better, more informed people if they spoke more than one language. And the idea that Emmanuel Cleaver is a "socialist" is hilarious. Whoever said that obviously has their brain programmed by too much right wing media. I'll bet that they have never me an actual socialist. Cleaver is a mainstream social democrat. None of this has anything to do with Linux, but it must be one of those days. Chuck
--- On Tue, 8/12/08, Chuck <chuck@mutualaid.org> wrote:
No one is illegal! The people wrongly accused of being "illegal" are more than welcome in my neighborhood and city.
Much as I salute your desire to welcome people into your neighborhood and city, illegal immigrants have violated laws through their entry into this country and are thus illegal immigrants. As opposed to legal immigrants which have entered through the legal channels of immigration. There's just no getting around the fact that until a law is repealed, the activity prohibited by that law is an illegal activity. Trying to pretend that the law doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just makes you look stupid, and puts you in the same category as Paris Hilton, who several months ago drove with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. She, too, stupidly tried to pretend that unrepealed laws did not exist. There's an inherent inconsistency with a statement like yours which boils down to "nice people should be allowed to break laws without punishment."
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
There's just no getting around the fact that until a law is repealed, the activity prohibited by that law is an illegal activity. Trying to pretend that the law doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just makes you look stupid, and puts you in the same category as Paris Hilton, who several months ago drove with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. She, too, stupidly tried to pretend that unrepealed laws did not exist.
So Rosa Parks is in the same category as Paris Hilton? "'Dem uppity negros shoulda stayed at da back o' da bus?" Some laws are just bad laws. I totally agree with you, however, on the voodoo economics. -- Chris
--- On Thu, 8/14/08, Christofer C. Bell <christofer.c.bell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
There's just no getting around the fact that until a law is repealed, the activity prohibited by that law is an illegal activity. Trying to pretend that the law doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just makes you look stupid, and puts you in the same category as Paris Hilton, who several months ago drove with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. She, too, stupidly tried to pretend that unrepealed laws did not exist.
So Rosa Parks is in the same category as Paris Hilton? "'Dem uppity negros shoulda stayed at da back o' da bus?" Some laws are just bad laws.
Actually, funny story: turns out Rosa Parks was *obeying the law* when she refused to give up her seat, and the bus driver had *no legal authority* to kick her out of her seat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks "Montgomery had passed a city ordinance for the purpose of segregating passengers by race. Conductors were given the power to assign seats to accomplish that purpose; however, no passengers would be required to move or give up their seat and stand if the bus was crowded and no other seats were available." Turns out the bus driver was following an accepted Montgomery AL bus driver practice, of making black people stand if a white person needed their seat, which had *no basis in law*. Which puts your comparison squarely into the category of "apples and oranges." Unless, of course, you can find a law which allows Paris Hilton (let alone anyone else) to drive with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. ;-) I realize that the anti-illegal-immigration folks would like to paint illegal immigrants as Rosa Parks, but its just not the same. Rosa Parks paid her bus fare and sat down in the black section, and the bus driver did not have the authority to kick her out of the black section seating. Illegal immigrants aren't abiding by U.S. Law when they bypass legal immigration channels, and the immigration officers have the legal authority to deport illegal immigrants. "Jim Crow" laws had no actual basis in fact other than to suppress black people. Immigration laws have some basis in fact and good reasons for their existence. Immigrants need to be checked for communicable diseases and get all their shots. They need to have their criminal histories researched as well as possible. While we still have a social safety net they need to have some means to support themselves here, at least for some time before making use of that social safety net. I agree that immigration laws could use some reform, but immigration laws are there to protect everyone already in the U.S.A., not just the sensibilities of racist white people. If Mexicans want to be like Rosa Parks, they need to legally immigrate before they protest immigration laws on this side of the border, or protest U.S. immigration laws on the Mexican side of the border.
I totally agree with you, however, on the voodoo economics.
-- Chris
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
There's just no getting around the fact that until a law is repealed, the activity prohibited by that law is an illegal activity. Trying to pretend that the law doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just makes you look stupid, and puts you in the same category as Paris Hilton, who several months ago drove with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. She, too, stupidly tried to pretend that unrepealed laws did not exist.
I get your point, but the Paris Hilton example is a straw man. It's not a valid comparison. If the law is bigoted and stupid, it's okay to not like the law and not care if it's violated. It's okay to advocate for a change in the law, and to argue that violators be forgiven or accommodated. Jim Crow laws. The Draft. Sodomy laws. All of which were bad laws, were violated by good people, and were overturned or repealed once society came around. I believe our immigration laws fall into those categories. Until we stop looking the other way at businesses violating labor laws, until we address the imbalance and inequity in our immigration quotas, and until we secure the border in a meaningful way I can't condemn those that choose to break them. Jeffrey. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
--- On Thu, 8/14/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
There's just no getting around the fact that until a law is repealed, the activity prohibited by that law is an illegal activity. Trying to pretend that the law doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just makes you look stupid, and puts you in the same category as Paris Hilton, who several months ago drove with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. She, too, stupidly tried to pretend that unrepealed laws did not exist.
I get your point, but the Paris Hilton example is a straw man. It's not a valid comparison.
Of course its a valid comparison. Illegal immigrants don't want to have to obey the law like everyone else. They want *what they want*, *when they want it* and don't want to have to *obey the law* like everyone else. In many ways illegal immigrants are poor versions of Paris Hilton: they're *snooty people* who think *the law shouldn't have to apply to them* just because they're *poor* and want to live somewhere else.
If the law is bigoted and stupid, it's okay to not like the law and not care if it's violated. It's okay to advocate for a change in the law, and to argue that violators be forgiven or accommodated.
Absolutely, but if you break the law before you repeal it, its stupid to demand that you not be punished for your actions.
Jim Crow laws. The Draft. Sodomy laws. All of which were bad laws, were violated by good people, and were overturned or repealed once society came around.
And those good people who violated those laws violated them knowing darn well they would be prosecuted for violating them. In fact the entire point of those "civil disobedient" people was that they be prosecuted, so that the cases could cause the laws to be repealed through court precedent. Then we have illegal immigrants who want to have their cake and eat it too: they want the laws repealed and to not be prosecuted for violating those laws prior to the repeal of said laws. This isn't "civil disobedience", this is Paris Hilton-style snobbery.
I believe our immigration laws fall into those categories.
Not so much. "Jim Crow" laws had no basis other than the oppression of black people. Same for sodomy laws oppressing homosexuals. Immigration carries very real threats with it, among them communicable diseases and violent criminal records. Immigration laws require that incoming immigrants prove they aren't a threat to existing U.S. citizens, and unlike the racism about blacks and the homophobia about homosexuals, the threats are real and not imagined. The Draft isn't so much a "bad" law as a badly-implemented law, originally created for good reasons (WWII) and exploited for bad ones (Vietnam).
Until we stop looking the other way at businesses violating labor laws, until we address the imbalance and inequity in our immigration quotas, and until we secure the border in a meaningful way I can't condemn those that choose to break them.
So because other people break one set of laws it is O.K. for you to break another set of laws? Explain to me how this is the statement of a rational person who believes in the rule of law. Incidentally, here in the U.S.A. a man is breaking and entering, and trespassing, if he enters my home without my permission, **even if my door is unlocked**. With your attitude about trespassing requiring "breaking into a house through a locked door", you may want to not let anyone know where *you* live, just in case one night you accidentally leave your door unlocked...
Leo Mauler wrote:
Of course its a valid comparison. Illegal immigrants don't want to have to obey the law like everyone else. They want *what they want*, *when they want it* and don't want to have to *obey the law* like everyone else.
I don't understand why people keep making this about people breaking the law. What does it matter to you, or anybody else who is do damned worked up about "illegal immigration"? Why don't people get worked up about something that really affects their lives, like bad drivers, exploitative employers, illiteracy, the attack on the environment, or whatever? Look, these so-called "illegal immigrants" are people like you and me. They should be seen as human beings with complicated lives, not as a category that lends itself to racist demonization. The people we are talking about are in this country for a variety of reasons. Most of them want to be with family who are already here. Most of them are looking for employment that pays them better than what they got paid back in Mexico and Central America. This demonization of "illegal immigrants" reflect a truism about Americans: they are generally very ignorant about how the world around them really works. If you are really that concerned about "illegal immigration", why not look at the root causes? Why are so many people coming to the U.S.? Obviously for economic reasons? What are the root causes of these economic problems? Mostly globalization and free trade, policies that were implemented by both U.S. parties. Remember NAFTA? Another root cause is the political policies perpetrated by the Reagan/Bush regime in Central America. It would take several Chomsky books to explain this, but U.S. policies in Central America were essentially a terrorist program against the poor and working classes in those countries. The U.S. is reaping what it sowed in the 1980s and over the previous decades in that region.
In many ways illegal immigrants are poor versions of Paris Hilton: they're *snooty people* who think *the law shouldn't have to apply to them* just because they're *poor* and want to live somewhere else.
This is just a bizarre argument. Illegal immigrants are snooty? Wtf? Chuck
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course its a valid comparison. Illegal immigrants don't want to have to obey the law like everyone else. They want *what they want*, *when they want it* and don't want to have to *obey the law* like everyone else.
In many ways illegal immigrants are poor versions of Paris Hilton: they're *snooty people* who think *the law shouldn't have to apply to them* just because they're *poor* and want to live somewhere else.
Your line of reasoning is totally absurd. Sorry to belabor the point from my earlier reply but if you think comparing an illegal immigrant coming to America to get a job and support his family with Paris Hilton driving drunk then you sir are putting too much Crazy Sauce on your hot dogs.
Absolutely, but if you break the law before you repeal it, its stupid to demand that you not be punished for your actions.
I didn't demand anything. I simply said that it's okay to not care if people violate and aren't punished. You're saying it's NOT okay, and that's okay, you're allowed to have that opinion. But then again, you are someone who appears to think that the immigration debate and celebutantes have a lot in common, so I personally won't put much value on your opinion.
And those good people who violated those laws violated them knowing darn well they would be prosecuted for violating them. In fact the entire point of those "civil disobedient" people was that they be prosecuted, so that the cases could cause the laws to be repealed through court precedent.
And there were lots of people who violated Jim Crow laws and weren't punished. There were lots of Jim Crow laws on the books in a lot of states that were never enforced and were eventually repealed. There are still dumb laws like that around, rotting away in the law books in every state. I appreciate your argument, but it's easily turned on its side.
Then we have illegal immigrants who want to have their cake and eat it too: they want the laws repealed and to not be prosecuted for violating those laws prior to the repeal of said laws. This isn't "civil disobedience", this is Paris Hilton-style snobbery.
"Snooty"? "Snobbery"? Seriously? Please debate rationally. I'm making an honest, last attempt to debate with you. If you are going to keep using absurdities I'm going to just killfile you.
Not so much. "Jim Crow" laws had no basis other than the oppression of black people. Same for sodomy laws oppressing homosexuals.
Actually, most Jim Crow laws had at their heart a misguided intent of maintaining the peace through racial segregation. Some were mean-spirited, but many were not. They simply failed in that their "separation" was always at the expense of blacks, and never whites. It's why "separate but equal" was wrong and didn't work as well.
Immigration carries very real threats with it, among them communicable diseases and violent criminal records. Immigration laws require that incoming immigrants prove they aren't a threat to existing U.S. citizens, and unlike the racism about blacks and the homophobia about homosexuals, the threats are real and not imagined.
If immigration law were reformed and labor laws enforced, most immigration would become legal and these scaremongering "issues" wouldn't be issues. The reality is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't criminals and aren't plague carriers. So because other people break one set of laws it is O.K. for you to break
another set of laws? Explain to me how this is the statement of a rational person who believes in the rule of law.
I thought my argument was pretty straightforward. I said the following (broken down for easy reading): UNTIL labor laws are enforced UNTIL immigration law is reformed UNTIL we secure the border in a meaningful way THEN I can not condemn someone who chooses to immigrate illegally I'm all for the rule of law when the laws are FAIR and ENFORCED. If they are neither, then it's hypocritical for me to expect people to be punished for violating unfair laws. Unlike what you've said, I'm not breaking any laws myself. I'm not sure where that came from. Incidentally, here in the U.S.A. a man is breaking and entering, and
trespassing, if he enters my home without my permission, **even if my door is unlocked**. With your attitude about trespassing requiring "breaking into a house through a locked door", you may want to not let anyone know where *you* live, just in case one night you accidentally leave your door unlocked...
Again, I see your example, but it's not cogent to this argument. Breaking and entering into a private residence and illegally immigrating are two different things. Any similarity is simply superficial, both legally and rationally. I suggest you use a stronger simile. Or better yet, stop trying to reduce a complex issue into catchphrases and goofy comparisons. Jeffrey. P.S. Leo, feel free to reply to the list, but I'm going to try and stay out of further public conversation on this issue. I've realized that I've already worn out my welcome in this debate and I'm going to refrain from discussing this issue any further publicly. I encourage you to do the same. This thread's time has come. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 00:14 -0500, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
Your line of reasoning is totally absurd. Sorry to belabor the point from my earlier reply but if you think comparing an illegal immigrant coming to America to get a job and support his family with Paris Hilton driving drunk then you sir are putting too much Crazy Sauce on your hot dogs.
It's not completely absurd, though it is a bit of a stretch. While his statements are somewhat sensationalistic, they do illustrate the common trait of feeling that a law doesn't or shouldn't apply to you.
I didn't demand anything. I simply said that it's okay to not care if people violate and aren't punished.
While it may be "okay," it certainly isn't wise, unless of course you subscribe to the views of anarchy.
"Snooty"? "Snobbery"? Seriously? Please debate rationally. I'm making an honest, last attempt to debate with you. If you are going to keep using absurdities I'm going to just killfile you.
Again, there is some rationality to his statements. He is just choosing to use sensationalistic terminology, which detracts from the issue at hand.
If immigration law were reformed and labor laws enforced, most immigration would become legal and these scaremongering "issues" wouldn't be issues.
Agreed.
The reality is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't criminals and aren't plague carriers.
By definition, all *illegal* immigrants are criminals, as the act of illegal entry into the U.S., or overstaying a VISA, is a misdemeanor criminal offense. The very act of entering the country illegally indicates the individual's willingness to disregard the laws of our society. They also indicate their intent to *continue* breaking the laws, because they know they will not be paying taxes as required by law.
UNTIL labor laws are enforced UNTIL immigration law is reformed UNTIL we secure the border in a meaningful way THEN I can not condemn someone who chooses to immigrate illegally
Regardless of whether our legal system is currently functioning properly or not, this line of thinking will undermine it. There are many laws which I do not agree with, but I still expect others to comply with them as I do myself.
I'm all for the rule of law when the laws are FAIR and ENFORCED. If they are neither, then it's hypocritical for me to expect people to be punished for violating unfair laws. Unlike what you've said, I'm not breaking any laws myself. I'm not sure where that came from.
Both terms (fair and enforced) are somewhat subjective. What you see as fair many others wont, and what you see as being adequately enforced may be viewed as overkill by others. You should *expect* others to be punished even if you don't *want* them to be punished.
Again, I see your example, but it's not cogent to this argument. Breaking and entering into a private residence and illegally immigrating are two different things. Any similarity is simply superficial, both legally and rationally. I suggest you use a stronger simile.
To say these two examples are completely different is like saying the math statements 2^2 and 23^45 are completely different. While they are "different," they both implement the same concept (raising a base number to an exponential power). Both of his examples illustrate a party voluntarily entering a place in violation of the law governing that place, and then intending to commit further illegal acts while in that place.
Or better yet, stop trying to reduce a complex issue into catchphrases and goofy comparisons.
Analogies are a fundamental mechanism for explanation and argumentation, and anyone who refuses to (or is incapable of) interpreting them is also refusing to (or incapable of) participating fully in a productive argument. While it may be that his analogies seem far fetched to some, this could be simply the result of an inability to interpret the material in an objective manner; it does not reduce the validity of his point. I do agree that he could have chosen better examples in some cases, but this is purely opinion. ~Bradley
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Bradley Hook <bhook@kssb.net> wrote:
Analogies are a fundamental mechanism for explanation and argumentation, and anyone who refuses to (or is incapable of) interpreting them is also refusing to (or incapable of) participating fully in a productive argument. While it may be that his analogies seem far fetched to some, this could be simply the result of an inability to interpret the material in an objective manner; it does not reduce the validity of his point. I do agree that he could have chosen better examples in some cases, but this is purely opinion.
You're being an apologist. I'm sorry, but if you stretch out the boundaries far enough _anything_ is a valid analogy. Both Sol and myself contain hydrogen. Therefore when the sun gets spots it's like me getting zits. By your reasoning that's a "far fetched" but still valid analogy. I'm sorry, but that's bunk. You can argue that "valid" can be just about anything, but if you stretch that concept that far then it becomes worthless. There is a limit to "valid". There are some key words I used. "Cogent". "Rational". "Reasoned". While those terms obviously can be very subjective when applied to analogies, what we've been seeing on this list from Leo is clearly not even within those loose boundaries. He's obviously a bright person, but all he spews are straw men, red herrings, and hyperbole - and thus discussions he's involved in usually end up becoming a shouting match, as he repeatedly dips into the bin of logical fallacies (hrm, was that ad hominem on my part?...). His Paris Hilton argument is a classic straw man. He uses her because most people despise her, and takes a trivial relationship between otherwise extremely dissimilar things and blows it up into a side-by-side comparison. It's the same silly thing you see on McCain's "celebrity" adverts. In this case, Paris Hilton is known primarily for her sex tape, her name, her lack of shame, and her overexposure. Her criminal problems were just icing on the cake and fodder for the gossip-mill. What's "wrong with her" is not her disregard for the law - her problems are much much deeper than that. Thus comparing her with a complex issue involving MILLIONS of people is flimsy. If he weren't trying to use a straw man he wouldn't have selected such an incendiary subject for his analogy. As I said, he's not stupid. Anyhow, I'd like to take him seriously, as there are times when he has good points. However I find that all the good is being drowned in a sea of poor reasoning and flimsy arguments. Jeffrey. P.S. Yes, I lied. I'm going to shut up about this thread now. Please respond me to me off-list if you want a further response. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Okay I lied again. One _last_ post, sorry. I had "straw men" on my mind apparently. Leo's current sin involving Paris is more a hasty generalization. Jeffrey. On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com>wrote:
His Paris Hilton argument is a classic straw man. He uses her because most people despise her, and takes a trivial relationship between otherwise extremely dissimilar things and blows it up into a side-by-side comparison. It's the same silly thing you see on McCain's "celebrity" adverts. In this case, Paris Hilton is known primarily for her sex tape, her name, her lack of shame, and her overexposure. Her criminal problems were just icing on the cake and fodder for the gossip-mill. What's "wrong with her" is not her disregard for the law - her problems are much much deeper than that. Thus comparing her with a complex issue involving MILLIONS of people is flimsy. If he weren't trying to use a straw man he wouldn't have selected such an incendiary subject for his analogy. As I said, he's not stupid.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
It could also be a reduction to absurdity. Brian Kelsay ________________________________ From: Jeffrey Watts Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:23 AM Okay I lied again. One _last_ post, sorry. I had "straw men" on my mind apparently. Leo's current sin involving Paris is more a hasty generalization. Jeffrey. On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote: His Paris Hilton argument is a classic straw man. He uses her because most people despise her, and takes a trivial relationship between otherwise extremely dissimilar things and blows it up into a side-by-side comparison. It's the same silly thing you see on McCain's "celebrity" adverts. In this case, Paris Hilton is known primarily for her sex tape, her name, her lack of shame, and her overexposure. Her criminal problems were just icing on the cake and fodder for the gossip-mill. What's "wrong with her" is not her disregard for the law - her problems are much much deeper than that. Thus comparing her with a complex issue involving MILLIONS of people is flimsy. If he weren't trying to use a straw man he wouldn't have selected such an incendiary subject for his analogy. As I said, he's not stupid.
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
P.S. Yes, I lied. I'm going to shut up about this thread now. Please respond me to me off-list if you want a further response.
Leo, I think you missed this part of Jeffrey's message in your quote-fest. -- Chris
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote
Both Sol and myself contain hydrogen. Therefore when the sun gets spots it's like me getting zits.
And whenever you pop them the price of crude oil drops five dollars a barrel? I work as a software engineer today, but some day I hope to move up to migrant farmworker.
--- On Wed, 8/20/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course its a valid comparison. Illegal immigrants don't want to have to obey the law like everyone else. They want *what they want*, *when they want it* and don't want to have to *obey the law* like everyone else.
In many ways illegal immigrants are poor versions of Paris Hilton: they're *snooty people* who think *the law shouldn't have to apply to them* just because they're *poor* and want to live somewhere else.
Your line of reasoning is totally absurd. Sorry to belabor the point from my earlier reply but if you think comparing an illegal immigrant coming to America to get a job and support his family with Paris Hilton driving drunk then you sir are putting too much Crazy Sauce on your hot dogs.
So comparing one person who commits a crime because they want something and won't follow the law, to another person who commits a crime because they want something and won't follow the law is "absurd"? Incidentally, there's no real proof that they aren't drinking their paychecks every Friday, in much the same way that there's no proof they aren't bringing in communicable diseases. Records and studies aren't kept on illegal immigrants because they are criminals operating outside normal society. You're making assumptions based on inadequate information, which does not speak towards accuracy in your assumptions.
Immigration carries very real threats with it, among them communicable diseases and violent criminal records. Immigration laws require that incoming immigrants prove they aren't a threat to existing U.S. citizens, and unlike the racism about blacks and the homophobia about homosexuals, the threats are real and not imagined.
If immigration law were reformed and labor laws enforced, most immigration would become legal and these scaremongering "issues" wouldn't be issues.
Legal immigrants are tested for diseases. Illegal immigrants aren't. The very real issue of communicable diseases coming in undetected in illegal immigrants won't go away just because you let in more legal immigrants.
The reality is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't criminals and aren't plague carriers.
They're all criminals because they have illegally immigrated. The word *illegal* should have tipped you off. It's not like they're being shoved across the border at gunpoint, they are making an active choice to break a well-known U.S. law. If you make the active choice to break a law, you are a criminal, and furthermore you have shown that your ethics allow you to break laws if you find them inconvenient to your desires. As for making claims about "the majority of illegal immigrants", the problem with statements like that is that you are GUESSING when you make that statement, because illegal immigrants aren't tested for communicable diseases when they arrive here. You have no idea how good or bad the problem with communicable diseases is, because there is no accurate information allowing an accurate determination of the problem. There are many factors which make an illegal immigrant more likely to arrive with a communicable disease. The bad public health policies of their home countries are a big factor, as are the debilitating hardships experienced on the trip, but an even more important factor is that sewage tunnels are a common choice for illegal immigrants to use when sneaking into the U.S.A. The illegal immigrant may arrive perfectly healthy at the U.S.-Mexico border, but gain lots of communicable diseases on his or her way under the border.
Incidentally, here in the U.S.A. a man is breaking and entering, and trespassing, if he enters my home without my permission, **even if my door is unlocked**. With your attitude about trespassing requiring "breaking into a house through a locked door", you may want to not let anyone know where *you* live, just in case one night you accidentally leave your door unlocked...
Again, I see your example, but it's not cogent to this argument. Breaking and entering into a private residence and illegally immigrating are two different things.
Illegal immigrants cannot work here legally. This means that any money they earn here is earned illegally. Earning money from breaking, entering, and stealing is also illegal income. Illegal trespassing is illegal trespassing, be it over a country's border or into a house through an unlocked door. Simply declaring that an analogy is invalid is inadequate to refute it.
Or better yet, stop trying to reduce a complex issue into catchphrases and goofy comparisons.
Only when you stop making authoritative statements about illegal immigration based on nothing more than your own shot-in-the-dark *guesses*. Statements which you then use to paint me as some kind of racist, or, even worse, as someone who gets his news from FOX Noise.
Leo Mauler wrote:
--- On Wed, 8/20/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Of course its a valid comparison. Illegal immigrants don't want to have to obey the law like everyone else. They want *what they want*, *when they want it* and don't want to have to *obey the law* like everyone else.
In many ways illegal immigrants are poor versions of Paris Hilton: they're *snooty people* who think *the law shouldn't have to apply to them* just because they're *poor* and want to live somewhere else.
Your line of reasoning is totally absurd. Sorry to belabor the point from my earlier reply but if you think comparing an illegal immigrant coming to America to get a job and support his family with Paris Hilton driving drunk then you sir are putting too much Crazy Sauce on your hot dogs.
So comparing one person who commits a crime because they want something and won't follow the law, to another person who commits a crime because they want something and won't follow the law is "absurd"?
"Absurd" in the debate sense, because it's an extreme case?
Incidentally, there's no real proof that they aren't drinking their paychecks every Friday, I read somewhere that the second-largest item in Mexico's gross national product list is money sent back to families from the United States.
Leo Mauler wrote:
Much as I salute your desire to welcome people into your neighborhood and city, illegal immigrants have violated laws through their entry into this country and are thus illegal immigrants. As opposed to legal immigrants which have entered through the legal channels of immigration.
I really don't give a damn if some laws created by a government with no legitimacy criminalizes a class of people for existing in the wrong place. They didn't have any say in the creation of those laws and neither did I. We need to get rid of the laws relating to "immigration" and "citizenship." Get rid of all passports, driver licenses and so on. People should be treated as human beings and their freedoms should be celebrated, not controlled or penalized. I just can't believe that we still have this anachronistic crap in the 21st century. All of this crap was developed in the early 20th century, so it's long overdue for being abolished.
There's just no getting around the fact that until a law is repealed, the activity prohibited by that law is an illegal activity. Trying to pretend that the law doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just makes you look stupid, and puts you in the same category as Paris Hilton, who several months ago drove with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. She, too, stupidly tried to pretend that unrepealed laws did not exist.
It's ridiculous to compare dangerous behavior to somebody who is "violating" the law because they are existing in the "wrong" place. Your argument is a classic example of why the debate over immigration is so stupid. People who oppose "illegal immigration" say they oppose it because "people are breaking the laws." Yes, some of these people are idiots who actually think that people should obey all laws, but much of this is a coded way to avoid the racist basis for opposition to "illegal" immigration. When people complain about "illegal" immigrants breaking the law, they are always talking about brown-skinned people from Mexico and Latin America. They aren't equally focused on the millions of people from elsewhere who are "illegal" in the United States. Again, how is somebody "illegal" status as a citizen comparable to a celebrity endangering people with aggressive driving? How many bystanders have been killed by somebody's "illegal" status?
There's an inherent inconsistency with a statement like yours which boils down to "nice people should be allowed to break laws without punishment."
People have the right to break unjust laws and that's what many people are doing, including folks who are aiding and assisting "illegal" people. I would go further and advocate the elimination of laws and government. That's the anarchist argument. Chuck
On Thursday 14 August 2008, Chuck wrote:
People have the right to break unjust laws and that's what many people are doing, including folks who are aiding and assisting "illegal" people.
People have the right and obligation to break laws that contradict higher laws. Outside of that, the civil government has the right to create whatever laws it wants. I tend toward libertarianism, but especially lately have come to the understanding that individual "rights" are being treated as divine at the expense of the rights of God and His appointed authorities. If there were to be a law that everyone must wear a hat at 5 PM, it would be binding, with exception only to cases where there is a higher law forbidding such an action.
I would go further and advocate the elimination of laws and government. That's the anarchist argument.
I would agree that anarchy may be better than the current US regime, but not on the same basis. The current regime protects real criminals from their victims, whereas at least with anarchy people can make attempts to protect themselves.
Luke -Jr wrote:
People have the right and obligation to break laws that contradict higher laws. Outside of that, the civil government has the right to create whatever laws it wants.
No, it doesn't. The government has no right to exist. Where does it get this authority from? From God? The divine right of government to exist? If the government supposedly exists by consent of the governed, that implies that the "governed" can withdraw their consent, thus implying that even arguments for the existence of a state admit that there are reasons for the state to not exist. Chuck
On Thursday 14 August 2008, Chuck wrote:
Luke -Jr wrote:
People have the right and obligation to break laws that contradict higher laws. Outside of that, the civil government has the right to create whatever laws it wants.
No, it doesn't. The government has no right to exist. Where does it get this authority from? From God? The divine right of government to exist?
All authority comes from God, including that of the civil governments.
If the government supposedly exists by consent of the governed, that implies that the "governed" can withdraw their consent, thus implying that even arguments for the existence of a state admit that there are reasons for the state to not exist.
Think about how ridiculous that is for a second. If I want to commit a crime, I just withdraw my consent to be governed and it becomes ok? God has authority regardless of consent of the "governed" men. The Church has authority regardless of consent of the "governed" laity. Parents have authority regardless of consent of the "governed" children. Why would civil authority be any different, let alone totally backward?
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
All authority comes from God, including that of the civil governments.
Think about how ridiculous that is for a second. If I want to commit a crime, I just withdraw my consent to be governed and it becomes ok? God has authority regardless of consent of the "governed" men. The Church has authority regardless of consent of the "governed" laity. Parents have authority regardless of consent of the "governed" children. Why would civil authority be any different, let alone totally backward?
Which God? Which Church? Before you answer, I suggest that you do the following: 1) Buy guns. Lots of guns. 2) Schedule a time and place for you and other religious folks to meet on the issue and "debate". 3) Tell the rest of us so we can get binoculars and enjoy the fireworks from afar. Morality doesn't come from Christianity. Governments don't come from Christianity. They are ancient parts of human society, and they predate modern religions. They are not dependent, they are exclusive and independent, though some fools like to impose their religious views on others claiming that morality and government are somehow new things. Jeffrey. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
On Thursday 14 August 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Luke -Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
All authority comes from God, including that of the civil governments.
Think about how ridiculous that is for a second. If I want to commit a crime, I just withdraw my consent to be governed and it becomes ok? God has authority regardless of consent of the "governed" men. The Church has authority regardless of consent of the "governed" laity. Parents have authority regardless of consent of the "governed" children. Why would civil authority be any different, let alone totally backward?
Which God? Which Church?
The true God and the Church He founded which teaches His Truths.
Before you answer, I suggest that you do the following:
Sounds suicidal.
Morality doesn't come from Christianity. Governments don't come from Christianity. They are ancient parts of human society, and they predate modern religions.
Morality is part of Christianity. False religions generally always have a false, corrupted version of "morality". Governments have no authority except through Christianity. Nothing predates the Truth, which is today known as Christianity.
Morality is part of Christianity. False religions generally always have a false, corrupted version of "morality". Governments have no authority except through Christianity. Nothing predates the Truth, which is today known as Christianity.
LOL!!! -- John Heryer
--- On Thu, 8/14/08, Chuck <chuck@mutualaid.org> wrote:
Leo Mauler wrote:
Much as I salute your desire to welcome people into your neighborhood and city, illegal immigrants have violated laws through their entry into this country and are thus illegal immigrants. As opposed to legal immigrants which have entered through the legal channels of immigration.
I really don't give a damn if some laws created by a government with no legitimacy
Legitimacy is defined by the willingness of the people under said government to accept its rulings. While you have strong opinions about immigration law, unless you live outside the U.S. then by choice you accept its legitimacy.
criminalizes a class of people for existing in the wrong place.
Correction: for choosing to go to the wrong place without permission. The U.S. didn't sprout *around* the illegal immigrants, they chose to cross a border *into* the U.S.A.
They didn't have any say in the creation of those laws
The citizenry of a country should be allowed to create their own laws regarding occupancy in that country, and should not have to bow down to the edicts of non-citizens.
and neither did I.
Are you a U.S. Citizen? (not intended as an insult: another KCLUG member is a native of Costa Rica and hasn't left yet) If the answer is "yes", then you have some say in the governance of the U.S.A.
We need to get rid of the laws relating to "immigration" and "citizenship." Get rid of all passports, driver licenses and so on. People should be treated as human beings and their freedoms should be celebrated, not controlled or penalized.
My freedom not to get sick when an illegal immigrant brings over a communicable disease needs to be celebrated by keeping immigration laws in place to try and prevent him from doing so. Immigration laws protect citizens from immigrants who pose a threat to the citizens in the country, whether they are doing so intentionally (violent criminal past) or unintentionally (through communicable diseases).
I just can't believe that we still have this anachronistic crap in the 21st century. All of this crap was developed in the early 20th century, so it's long overdue for being abolished.
By that argument we need to abolish *safety regulations* implemented in the 20th Century. Care for some hotdogs which are mostly rat droppings and with traces of the fingers some worker lost in the meat grinder? How about a bottle marked "honey" which is nothing but sugar water with some orange food coloring? These regulations prevent businesses from getting what they want, when they want it, so since thats the "logic" for abolishing immigration laws then clearly the safety regulations have to go too. Prior to the 20th Century we didn't know much about disease either. Those 20th Century immigration laws came about because of more knowledge, not less, and need to be kept in place precisely because they try to protect citizens of the U.S.A. from diseases in other countries which have lax laws about public health.
There's just no getting around the fact that until a law is repealed, the activity prohibited by that law is an illegal activity. Trying to pretend that the law doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just makes you look stupid, and puts you in the same category as Paris Hilton, who several months ago drove with a suspended driver's license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in the dark with her headlights off, all at the same time. She, too, stupidly tried to pretend that unrepealed laws did not exist.
It's ridiculous to compare dangerous behavior to somebody who is "violating" the law because they are existing in the "wrong" place.
Current immigration laws require that incoming immigrants be healthy without any dangerous communicable diseases. The behavior of illegal immigrants *is* dangerous behavior. But even more important is the fact that Paris Hilton, exactly like illegal immigrants, feels that the laws shouldn't have to apply to her because they prevent her from getting what she wants, when she wants it. Illegal immigrants are poor versions of Paris Hilton: snooty little snobs who feel that they shouldn't have to obey the law because they are poor.
Your argument is a classic example of why the debate over immigration is so stupid. People who oppose "illegal immigration" say they oppose it because "people are breaking the laws." Yes, some of these people are idiots who actually think that people should obey all laws,
People should obey all laws, or at least not act surprised when they are punished for violating those laws. Its your attitude, that a "bad law" shouldn't apply prior to its repeal, that is idiotic.
but much of this is a coded way to avoid the racist basis for opposition to "illegal" immigration. When people complain about "illegal" immigrants breaking the law, they are always talking about brown-skinned people from Mexico and Latin America. They aren't equally focused on the millions of people from elsewhere who are "illegal" in the United States.
My example of someone else who, like illegal immigrants, thinks laws shouldn't prevent her from getting what she wants, was Paris Hilton, who is *white*. Don't call me a racist. I think immigration laws are important regardless of the color of the skin of the immigrant. Don't try to dismiss me as a racist so you can feel justified. I'll personally deport Canadians and Britisher pigs if they come here illegally.
Again, how is somebody "illegal" status as a citizen comparable to a celebrity endangering people with aggressive driving? How many bystanders have been killed by somebody's "illegal" status?
Saying that illegal immigrants don't harm anyone is a nice *safe* statement to make, since their illegal status means we can't tell if they are carrying any communicable diseases, or pets with communicable animal diseases. You can sit there and insist that they're all 100% healthy, but thats just conjecture on your part. Bird flu is just around the corner, but there are other communicable diseases right here, right now. Immigration laws mean that the only people allowed in are those who are healthy and won't infect the rest of the population with a communicable disease. I certainly hope that white people with communicable diseases are being barred from entry just like people with other skin colors, and I'd be very annoyed to find out that white people with communicable diseases are being allowed in despite their conditions.
There's an inherent inconsistency with a statement like yours which boils down to "nice people should be allowed to break laws without punishment."
People have the right to break unjust laws
No, people have the right to accept punishment for unjust laws they *choose to break*. Those who want to break the law and avoid the punishment aren't being "civilly disobedient", they're just being selfish. Civil disobedience is all about gaining publicity for the movement against an unjust law through the court case brought on by the prosecution of the person who broke the law. If you aren't willing to accept the punishment then you're no different from a criminal.
I would go further and advocate the elimination of laws and government. That's the anarchist argument.
True enough, though that would allow the Minutemen to "legally" (somewhat a misnomer, since there would be no laws) make use of *live ammo* in their efforts to prevent Mexicans from entering the U.S.A. Our current system of government, the one you dislike so much for its laws, also has laws which protect illegal immigrants from violent anti-illegal-immigrant actions by its citizenry. Get rid of that government and you get rid of those laws, not to mention the laws which ban the personal possession of automatic weapons. The Fourteenth Amendment's provisions regarding non-Citizens: "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Anarchy means that one goes bye-bye, and Anarchy isn't really "lack of government", it means "governance by those who have the most guns." Like all the rich white people vs. all the poor illegal immigrants. "Dont it always seem to go That you dont know what you've got Till its gone" -- Joni Mitchell, "Big Yellow Taxi"
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:>
My example of someone else who, like illegal immigrants, thinks laws shouldn't prevent her from getting what she wants, was Paris Hilton, who is *white*. Don't call me a racist.
I'm going to ignore the rest of the crap you wrote and call you a not only a racist, but a hypochondriac, as well. I'm sure every little sniffle you suffer from is the fault of some poor brown guy. -- Chris
Leo has me convinced: deport Paris Hilton now!
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
My freedom not to get sick when an illegal immigrant brings over a communicable disease needs to be celebrated by keeping immigration laws in place to try and prevent him from doing so.
I see now where you get your news. I recall that a year ago or so was when Fox News was running the scare story over and over again about illegal immigrants bringing over Consumption. A lot of blogs were as well. It's not as big a deal as folks make it out to be, and tends to be used by small-minded folks as an excuse for discrimination. I'm not asserting that you are one of them, so please don't take offense. The odd thing, though, is that I think most folks _agree_ that illegal immigration should be curtailed. The problem is that there are many folks taking extreme positions (most, unfortunately, on the Right side of the political spectrum). Last year's attempted compromise was very flawed, but it was a start. We need to find a real solution for the problem and it's not "kick 'em all out and build a giant wall". The problem is much more complicated than that. I would like to see illegal immigration numbers to drop, dramatically. However, to do that we need to reform our immigration laws to make them less biased against working class folks and to reform the quota system. This will make it easier to secure the border by reducing the influx. We must put teeth to the labor laws that prevent abuses of illegal immigrants, which will dry up the jobs for illegal labor. Finally, we must offer some solution to the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here - and no, "deporting them" isn't an option, as we simply can not capture and deport 15 million people, we don't have the manpower, the money, the time, nor the detention centers necessary. Folks can argue about it all they want, but it simply won't happen - we need to find a compromise. Leo, your Paris Hilton example is absurd. Please stop justifying it and use something cogent. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's so out there that I could probably make a similar comparison involving a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You can do better. :) Jeffrey. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
--- On Tue, 8/19/08, Jeffrey Watts <jeffrey.w.watts@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant@yahoo.com> wrote:
My freedom not to get sick when an illegal immigrant brings over a communicable disease needs to be celebrated by keeping immigration laws in place to try and prevent him from doing so.
I see now where you get your news. I recall that a year ago or so was when Fox News was running the scare story over and over again about illegal immigrants bringing over Consumption.
FOX Noise isn't my source of news (except the occasional story which filters in through Keith Olberman over on MSNBC). Illegal immigration is a disease vector which needs to be blocked.
It's not as big a deal as folks make it out to be,
Until Patient Zero illegally immigrates. Besides which, the illegal immigrants aren't being tested for diseases right now. There's no information which would allow you to state, accurately, that "it's not as big a deal as folks make it out to be." For all we know it is an incredibly big deal which is simply under-reported. But there are additional factors. Its not just the communicable diseases. Its the poor living conditions experienced by illegal immigrants, such as the cramming of multiple individuals into a single room. Its the poor food and the poor working conditions. Once they're here its an outbreak waiting to happen. Poor Americans are sometimes in the same boat, but unlike the illegal immigrant they aren't risking deportation just to go see a doctor, and thus maybe prevent an outbreak.
and tends to be used by small-minded folks as an excuse for discrimination. I'm not asserting that you are one of them, so please don't take offense.
Frankly I could care less what race the illegal immigrant is. Illegal immigrants haven't been tested for communicable diseases, and I'm just as adamant about Canadians not coming in illegally as I am about Mexicans coming in illegally.
The odd thing, though, is that I think most folks _agree_ that illegal immigration should be curtailed. The problem is that there are many folks taking extreme positions (most, unfortunately, on the Right side of the political spectrum).
In much the same way that homosexuals (those who have put some thought into the matter) think Fred Phelps is more of a blessing than a curse (no one wants to be seen as aligning himself with Fred), I'm of the opinion that the folks who seem to support illegal immigration would have a much harder time if there weren't so many racists in favor of halting illegal immigration.
Last year's attempted compromise was very flawed, but it was a start. We need to find a real solution for the problem and it's not "kick 'em all out and build a giant wall". The problem is much more complicated than that.
When people start saying things like "illegal immigration is more complex than kicking out all the illegal immigrants", they're generally talking about increasing immigration, not decreasing it.
I would like to see illegal immigration numbers to drop, dramatically. However, to do that we need to reform our immigration laws to make them less biased against working class folks
As you say, the problem is very complex. One aspect which proponents of increased and more open legal immigration fail to comprehend is that many of the problems which cause folks to want to immigrate to the U.S.A. are caused by the governments of the home countries of the immigrants. Simply allowing more legal immigrants fixes nothing if the government at home doesn't fix its problems and just uses the U.S.A. as a dumping ground for excess citizens created by the government's failed policies.
and to reform the quota system.
No argument from me against reforming the quota system.
This will make it easier to secure the border by reducing the influx.
The influx will not be reduced by allowing more people in legally. The influx will be reduced when home countries fix their governments and economies.
We must put teeth to the labor laws that prevent abuses of illegal immigrants, which will dry up the jobs for illegal labor.
Sounds great, albeit a bit on the "pipe-dream" side of things.
Finally, we must offer some solution to the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here - and no, "deporting them" isn't an option, as we simply can not capture and deport 15 million people, we don't have the manpower, the money, the time, nor the detention centers necessary. Folks can argue about it all they want, but it simply won't happen - we need to find a compromise.
Finally, we must decide not to punish the millions of highway speeders that are already here, and no, punishing them in courts isn't an option, as we simply can not capture and imprison several million people. We don't have the manpower, the money, the time, nor the prisons necessary. Every time I hear the "we shouldn't punish criminals (or X type of criminals) because there are too many of them" argument, I hear all kinds of other common crime titles in place of "illegal immigration", and wonder why on earth no one else does as well. Compromises seem to boil down to "let criminals continue to break the law with impunity", a concept which is a recipe for anarchy. If we do not enforce the law because there are too many lawbreakers, then the number of lawbreakers will simply increase, not decrease, since everyone will know that they can break the law and get away with breaking the law.
Leo, your Paris Hilton example is absurd. Please stop justifying it and use something cogent.
Your inability to accept it is precisely why you use arguments like "we shouldn't punish criminals because there are too many of them".
I understand what you're trying to say
Clearly you do not, since you used the "we shouldn't punish criminals because there are too many of them" argument.
You can do better. :)
It occurs to me that I just did with my "highway speeders" example, which is of course indirectly related to the "Paris Hilton" example.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:00:22PM -0500, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
Brian, I'm assuming from your name that you're not Native American (the modern usage). How did your forefathers come to this country? Did they get a visa from the US consulate in their country? Can you prove this? The reality is that unless one's relatives arrived after 1924 they most likely just showed up here.
When my ancestor (Thomas Durston) arrived in 1632, there was no US consulate that one could visit to apply for a visa. Legally he was migrating from one part of the British empire to another, and therefore no visa was required. Thanks, -- Hal
Touche! However, you sir are probably in the minority as most immigrated post-Revolution. It still doesn't reduce my original point, however. :) Jeffrey. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Hal Duston <hald@kc.rr.com> wrote:
When my ancestor (Thomas Durston) arrived in 1632, there was no US consulate that one could visit to apply for a visa. Legally he was migrating from one part of the British empire to another, and therefore no visa was required.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
What's in a name? Actually I am partial Cherokee Indian. I don't live with the tribe or anything, but a grandmother of my grandmother was full blood Cherokee. My family suffered at some point, I'm sure. Further back, my family came here to the "Colonies" in 1620 and changed their name, or it got changed for them thru back record-keeping, from Kelso to Kelsay. So we've been here a while and gotten mixed up pretty good among the European, bloods. I believe that one of the many potato famines were going on in Ireland at the time. They were however, allowed to come to the "Colonies". legally. Meaning that Britain specifically said they would allow a certain number of Irish people to enter the "Colonies". I went back and changed a few words when I thought about the time frame involved. Currently the US has a quota on how many people are allowed in from each country per year and I believe that number is set to keep the numbers of types of peoples balanced in this great melting pot of ours. Those rules on numbers and the method of entry are set down as immigration law. While you or I may not like them, we and those entering our country do have to live by them until they are changed. If you don't like them, then personally work to get them changed. Write letters, protest, try to get into congress or whatever method you can think of if it is something that sets you on fire. BUT, entering this or any other country remains an illegal enterprise, just as an improper lane change without a signal, although that will not get you a ticket as quickly as speeding in this town. We are a nation of laws and to me that means something. You must also think about the screening that is supposed to happen when a person enters the country. I know, I know, they didn't do that back in 1620, but people also died of a lot of diseases and died of natural causes before they hit 50. So now we test for disease, we vaccinate, we make sure they don't carry in food with fruit flies and things growing on them. I must've been asked about fruit like 20 times on the way to and from Hawaii in 1996. We make sure these persons have some job or vocation lined up and other things so they are not a drain on the system. They must take classes to learn history, they must learn some basic English, etc. I do believe that putting signs, etc. in Spanish is a crutch and a mistake. Look at what it is doing to Canada. I can live with it though as long as everything defaults to English and I can stop pressing 1. Employers are being punished for employing known illegal immigrants. Fines are being imposed and they are being watched closer for employing illegals. Those penalties are in the law and again, you can try to get them changed to be more forceful. I figure that once a company is in violation of the law with one department, that others may start to look their way also. Maybe have a detailed health inspection and OSHA inspection. Funny you mentioned Cubans. For one they are a lot smaller population base and many were fleeing being murdered in the streets. Papa Fidel was no better than Stalin and killed many of his own people. For reasons of the type of situation they are leaving, certain peoples are given leniency from time to time. Cubans, Vietnamese, Philippinos, Puerto Ricans, Samoans, etc. have been shown favoritism at times of political distress and had their quotas raised. Well, time to get some work done, good talking to you. Now if we could just get more people talking Linux by default. Brian Kelsay ________________________________ From: Jeffrey Watts Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 4:00 PM Brian, I'm assuming from your name that you're not Native American (the modern usage). How did your forefathers come to this country? Did they get a visa from the US consulate in their country? Can you prove this? The reality is that unless one's relatives arrived after 1924 they most likely just showed up here. I get what you're saying, but the term "illegal" is overused here to imply badness or criminality on the part of the immigrants. When someone changes lanes without signaling, they're driving "illegally" but you don't hear people freaking out about that. I'm not saying it's how things should be, but I am saying it's not the big Mexican Scare that the GOP and Lou Dobbs has been selling. They're normal folks, just like us, that just want to be able to work to support their families. Instead of punishing them we ought to be addressing the real problem, which is our crappy immigration policies and an environment where employers aren't punished for violating the minimum wage, social security, and Medicare laws. If there weren't sweatshops, there'd be less border-jumping. If we allowed more working class folks to immigrate, they're be less border-jumping. If we didn't have hypocritical laws such as "wet foot / dry foot" there'd be less border-jumping. You do know that illegal Cuban immigrants are given green cards? Anyhow, I do appreciate your reasoned rebuttal. I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, I'm just arguing that we need to address the source of the problem instead of the symptoms. Jeffrey On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Kelsay, Brian <> wrote: Not to be political, but the key part of the phrase is "illegal". If a person is not in a country legally, then they should have a different set of expectations about how the society they've invaded will react to them. An illegal alien from any country cannot expect to receive the same benefits as a legal immigrant or a natural citizen. Por exemplo, I cannot go to Mexico for anything longer than a brief visit, although a visa may not be required. And the US requires some proof of citizenship upon reentry. I can drive to Canada and visit briefly, but cannot work there without a work visa. If I want medical care while I'm there, I believe it is emergency treatment only and I'd have to return to the states to get my insurance to cover procedures. Follow the laws and its not such a big deal. Someday, we may be able to come and go between all countries and live and work where we please, crossing borders pell-mell, but for now there are many reasons for the laws in place in each country governing the comings and goings of people. Brian Kelsay
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO < brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov> wrote:
Currently the US has a quota on how many people are allowed in from each country per year and I believe that number is set to keep the numbers of types of peoples balanced in this great melting pot of ours.
There's part of the problem. I'm of the opinion that we ought to not discriminate based upon nationality.
If you don't like them, then personally work to get them changed. Write letters, protest, try to get into congress or whatever method you can think of if it is something that sets you on fire. BUT, entering this or any other country remains an illegal enterprise, just as an improper lane change without a signal, although that will not get you a ticket as quickly as speeding in this town. We are a nation of laws and to me that means something.
One of my biggest issues with the immigration "debate" is the fact that it's disproportionate. There are many things wrong in this country, yet there's a certain craziness that some people get when talking about this issue. I'm all for comprehensive reform, but I personally feel that this is a much smaller issue than others. For many of those folks I'm convinced racism and xenophobia are behind their "concern". I attended one of Pat Roberts' conference call / town meeting things a month or so back. There was a woman who was hysterically shouting into the phone that we ought to order border control agents to shoot to kill illegal immigrants. I'm not kidding, and I'm not overemphasizing her hysteria. Her voice was shaking and she was shouting into the phone. Pat, of course, didn't denounce her comments and instead talked about his positions on immigration. What a coward. You must also think about the screening that is supposed to happen when
a person enters the country. I know, I know, they didn't do that back in 1620, but people also died of a lot of diseases and died of natural causes before they hit 50. So now we test for disease, we vaccinate, we make sure they don't carry in food with fruit flies and things growing on them.
You must not know this, but that's exactly what they were doing just that on Ellis Island starting in the 1800s. It had a massive hospital where diseased immigrants were held, and many were sent back to their native countries if they had a communicable disease. Screening isn't a new thing, though it's certainly more modern now. I must've been asked about fruit like 20 times on the
way to and from Hawaii in 1996.
Hehe Hawai'i is a state, not a foreign country. But I know what you mean. :)
We make sure these persons have some job or vocation lined up and other things so they are not a drain on the system.
Also performed at Ellis Island since the 1800s. They would return folks who they felt were going to be a drain on society. Their standards, however, were lower and they focused on whether or not someone knew a trade, not whether or not they have lined up a job in advance (which is very difficult for the poor).
They must take classes to learn history, they must learn some basic English, etc.
I would agree with the history part, except for the fact that people born here don't know any of this themselves. I think we hold others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves.
I do believe that putting signs, etc. in Spanish is a crutch and a mistake.
I think that if a community or state wants to do something, it should be allowed to. I think the Federal government needs to stop involving itself in things it doesn't need to. As far as signs go, that's really not a new issue. In Italian neighborhoods lots of signs are in Italian. Same for Chinatown. Or Little Saigon. But I think you're talking about "official" signs. I can see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I don't see the harm in America becoming more multicultural. However given the complexity of the issue I'm inclined to let the states and local communities decide what's good for them. I don't think Kansas should have to print signs in Spanish if they don't want. On the other hand, I don't think the Feds should be telling New Mexico what to do.
Look at what it is doing to Canada.
Are you referring to the Quebecois? Or other immigrants? If you're referring to the Quebecois then I think you don't know what you're talking about, as the Quebecois aren't a subculture of Canada, and implying they ought to learn English when they live in communities composed entirely of French-speaking people would be silly. That said, most Quebecois know some English, and many of the other Canadians know some French. If you are referring to another language, then I'm not sure what it's doing to Canada. I haven't heard of anything.
Employers are being punished for employing known illegal immigrants. Fines are being imposed and they are being watched closer for employing illegals. Those penalties are in the law and again, you can try to get them changed to be more forceful. I figure that once a company is in violation of the law with one department, that others may start to look their way also. Maybe have a detailed health inspection and OSHA inspection.
Yes, I agree. My concern is that it's obviously not being enforced. The government has been looking the other way on this issue, as it underfunds enforcement efforts. Unfortunately we send troops to the border in order that we can look tough on this issue, when the reality is that cracking down on illegal employment is far more effective. There's hypocrisy in how we've been dealing with this problem.
Funny you mentioned Cubans. For one they are a lot smaller population base and many were fleeing being murdered in the streets. Papa Fidel was no better than Stalin and killed many of his own people. For reasons of the type of situation they are leaving, certain peoples are given leniency from time to time.
The vast majority of the Cuban emigres the last 20 years have been folks seeking economic freedom. Just like the vast majority of the Mexican emigres. In the mid-80s there was the infamous prison dump, and before then there were lots of political refugees, but nowadays that's just not the typical case. And I'm sorry, as crappy as Fidel is, he's not even on the same scale as Stalin. That's an inaccurate comparison. I get your point, though. Have a good day, thanks for the conversation. Jeffrey. -- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
Si Senor, the GNOME project was started by, and primarily written (early on) by Miguel de Icaza and Federico Mena. They are both Mexicans, and Miguel has subsequently immigrated to the United States. Oh no! As far as the white panic over "illegal immigrants" goes, yes, at its roots are old fashioned racism and xenophobia. Unfortunately those folks don't realize that throughout our country's history there have been multiple outbreaks of these panics. Just ask Poles, Sicilians, Chinese, and especially the Irish. This is just a short list, so please don't be slighted if I forgot a minority group. :) The funny thing is that there was even a very similar political party back then, called the Native Americans (AKA the "Know Nothings"). Irony with the name aside, they actually had very similar fears to the current crop of xenophobes, and were terrified of the influx of Irish Catholic immigrants. Strangely enough, most of the Native Americans ended up in the nascent Republican Party... They claim it's about "American culture" and "security" and so forth, but in the end it's just xenophobia and racism. I'd say just xenophobia, but you don't see people getting apoplectic about white Canadians illegally entering the US (which happens often). I'm not saying we ought to have people crossing illegally, I'm all for "securing the border". However, what needs to happen in addition to that is massive immigration reform. We need to crack down on employers providing sub-minimum wage jobs to illegals (which oddly enough the GOP itself supports, as those employers enjoy the cheap labor) and we need to increase opportunity for immigration for people without advanced degrees. Our forefathers came over penniless and with a desire to build a better life for themselves, I think we ought to allow similar people to immigrate to the US today. Unlike most of the yokels that rant on and on about this issue, I actually speak a fair amount of Spanish, have been to Mexico, have had many Latino friends, and grew up next to the border. There's no real crisis - this is all a made-up issue in order to scare people into voting Republican. The only real problem is our bigoted and hoary immigration policies. Mexicans are people like us, and those that immigrate just want to work and better their lives. Instead of persecuting them, we ought to be providing them legal, realistic methods by which they can immigrate and end the cycle of border-jumping. I don't think most Americans realize how hard it is to immigrate to the US if you don't have an advanced degree or an in-demand job. I also don't think they realize how much of the food that they eat was picked, slaughtered, and prepared by Mexican immigrants. We need hard-working immigrants who are willing to work their way up in society. This isn't a bad thing, it's how this country was built - people have just forgotten. That all said, sorry James derailed the thread and took us off into Limbaugh-land. I don't like 'dem types of terrists, and it's hard for me to resist pursuing them. Jeffrey. On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Phil Thayer <phil.thayer@vitalsite.com>wrote:
Really? The Mexicans wrote GNOME? I didn't know that. The comment about support for illegal aliens might be construed as racist but, I think it is just paranoia about losing a low paying job that nobody else in the US wants to do anyways.
-- "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
--- On Tue, 8/12/08, David Nicol <davidnicol@gmail.com> wrote:
I actually don't recall what position I was endorsing when I attempted to summarize our discussion of HR #5889 in an e-mail to our former mayor and fifth district rep, but here's his reply
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Congressman Emanuel Cleaver Date: Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:44 AM Subject: Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver To: davidnicol@gmail.com
Dear David:
... ...
Although I believe the public could benefit from access to more works, we should not sacrifice the fundamental right of an artist to his or her work. Currently, H.R. 5889 is pending consideration in the House Committee on the Judiciary. If this bill should come to the floor for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.
Sounds like a politician: try to make both sides think you are on "their side" while not actually expressing an opinion favorable to either side.
participants (15)
-
Bradley Hook -
Christofer C. Bell -
Chuck -
David Nicol -
Hal Duston -
James Sissel -
Jeffrey Watts -
Jim Herrmann -
John Heryer -
Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO -
Leo Mauler -
lowell -
Luke -Jr -
Oren Beck -
Phil Thayer