http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20100418/NEWS16/4180352 - http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20100418/NEWS16/4180352

 

Am I missing something?

 

You're confused?  I'm confused.  Are you saying that we made it difficult to immigrate because bureaucracy is awful?

 

That doesn't seem like a very good reason...

 

Besides that, there are legitimate economic reasons for excluding people, especially unskilled people, from immigrating.

 

Really?  The market apparently doesn't think so.  If it were otherwise, there wouldn't be such excellent economic opportunities for illegals.

 

That's a rather broad brush you are painting illegal aliens with, there...

 

Yes really.  I suspect that most illegals aren't thinking anything along the lines of "screw you, I'm more important than your laws."  Certainly not all.  Not even close.  Illegals are a varied group.  Your statement is  just objectively false.  Hence, broad brush.

 

Nor do I think anybody (at least not very many) is arguing that illegals are more deserving than others - rather that many illegals are no less deserving.

 

 

 

 

Because the US Congress has never passed any resolution condemning the domestic activities of other countries...

 

 

You did not use a quantifier.  The absence of a qualifier leaves an absolute.

A criminal is inherently less deserving of certain freedoms than a non-criminal, are they not?

 

That's a bit circular...  Let me clarify:  There is nothing a priori less deserving about an alien who later becomes "illegal" than there is about an alien who does not become "illegal." 

 

 

 

And the whole point of all of this was not whether the illegals should be illegal or not, it was the overall tone that we should feel sorry for people that under the current laws are in fact criminals and complaining because they are being discriminated against for breaking the law. Felons aren't allowed to be lawyers, because they are felons. They have no basis for arguing because they made the decision to be a felon. Illegals, by the very fact they are illegal, makes them criminals and they have no one to blame but themselves. They made the choice to be illegal. I know your argument is that not all illegals are Mexican fruit pickers, some are highly educated individuals that are valuable to society. However, this is not specifically who the article was discussing. We are addressing the bulk of illegals that are uneducated and unskilled.  In the article, the girl who did not speak English was complaining that she could not get a job as a secretary. She admittedly "crossed the river" 10 years earlier... and she still could not speak english? And she couldn't figure out why? Really?

 

My reaction to the article wasn't one of pity, but one of "holy crap!, you mean the system is actually working for a change? Cool".

Thank you. 

Other in this thread feel the need to sugar coat it as the state "protecting itself." 

If you want to enact stricter laws on immigration, that's one thing. This law is not how to go about doing it. 

It is, at it's core, legalized harassment of Latinos. 

I understand the worry in your comments. I think it would be difficult. 

However, it seems anti-American in its ideologically to begin capping immigration. We are a country based on rapid immigration. Unless everyone on here posting is pure Native American, we all come from people who came to this country looking for a better life. 

It is almost the core value of the U.S. 

So what you essentially support is deporting those who require federal assistance? 

You should probably read the bill before you type about it. 

 

The problem isn't the quality of the people applying here, as is popular belief, it's the quality of life that we've adapted here in the US. We're far too dependent on social programs both at on a local and federal basis. America's chief dependency problem isn't foreign oil-it's government and state assistance.

 

My personal opinion on the matter is that we need to somehow provide much more strict guidelines for every type of assistance we offer. I'm all for drug testing with state medicaid programs, investigating questionable medical and financial claims, and taking a much more temporary standpoint when it comes to food stamps and medicaid. Providing better educational oppurtunities and at least making attempts to say, "Hey, you don't have to live in poverty. If you're relying on the government, you're going to have to actively exhaust every resource we've made available to you in order to continue that dependency." We have far too many people just chillaxin' with their medicaid and food stamps, content to live with that lifestyle for the rest of their lives. Is every single person on government assistance like this? Of course not. Is it becoming more and more prevalent? I believe so, just from rising dependency and personal experience.

 

For me this issue goes much deeper than illegal immigration. It's a system that encourages dependency.

So if you've read it, then you understand that what you said originally is the fallacy of the new law, right? 

That should bring about some interesting backpedaling. 

Unless the police plan on literally stopping and checking the citizenship of every person they see, no matter skin color, then this law in its current state is exactly what I said it was before - legalized harassment of Latinos. 

Affirmative action, at its core, is meant to act as an equalizing force. Are there flaws with the way people interpret that? Sure. But the core of the AA idea was "to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." 

...And as much as you don't want to think is the case, intent of the law does, and needs to, weigh into the decision making process when drafting laws. 

The new law in Arizona, its intention is not to "Judge the person as a whole." That plays nothing into it. 

If anything, it is a giant leap in the opposite direction. 

Not to fall into the trap of chased topics, but...

Can you explain to me what legally binding aspects of "affirmative action" you disagree with? 

What are specific, legally binding aspects of "Affirmative action" that you disagree with. 

Do you think that fits in line with historical American ideology - pardon the cliche - the "American dream?" 

We need to break this down. Still no specifics, but we are getting there. 

What does "It's legally allowed," mean, please use examples and specifics here. 

What "judging" is taking place? 

In what situations is someone's accomplishments not being judged. 

Remember, I asked for legally binding situations here. 

< ="utf-8">

Mack wrote: ^^^ Quotas in education would be a good example.

So in your opinion, the days of America being the place of refuge for the huddled masses is an extinct one? 

Note* Mack, I'm not trying to debate you or be snarky, I'm legit curious as to your opinion as to how this fits in with previous precedent. 

 

Yup, because bad modern experiences with bureaucracy completely nullify the oppurtunities of the millions who have changed their lives by coming here.

 

I find that logic offensive. Whatever problems with the sytem exists, there are still many (myself included) who are able to better themselves thanks to the oppurtunities provided by our system. We just need to fix it to where the unproductive are no longer encouraged and rewarded for the lack of productivity, and find some way to ease the immigration process.