Agnapostate Talks to the Everyday Anti-Immigrant

[Agnapostate]

This post is intended to be the first installment of a series dealing with the issue based on a made-up dialogue between me, since I'm a former far-right individual, and an average rightist anti-immigrant, since I happen to believe that I have a fairly good understanding of that perspective. Feel free to issue corrections and comments to points of dispute.


Agnapostate: Why do you oppose immigration?

Anti-Immigrant: I do not oppose immigration. What I oppose is illegal immigration. Entry into this great country of ours ought to be done the right way, in fairness to everyone. The illegal aliens cheat others.

Agnapostate: “Illegal aliens” and “illegals” are rather loaded terms, aren’t they?

Anti-Immigrant: They’re accurate terms that describe the behavior of people that break the law. I will not use some euphemism like “undocumented” to describe criminals. Are drug dealers “undocumented pharmacists”?

Agnapostate: You do realize that there is a distinction between the two terms, don’t you? The term “illegal immigrant” describes unauthorized border crossers, while the “undocumented” refers to foreign nationals who legally entered the country and then overstayed their visa expiration date. It’s actually more accurate to refer to such people as “undocumented residents,” since they were documented immigrants. Statistical data [http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/article_825a9b53-c1f5-5451-a62b-db72b307c09d.html, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5485917, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198298,00.html] indicates that this group forms about 40 to 50% of unlawful foreign nationals, contrary to the popular image of people scurrying across unguarded border areas to get in.

Anti-Immigrant: You’re just playing useless word games. You know exactly what it is that I mean.

Agnapostate: Just trying to clarify these terms so that we have more accurate understandings of them.

Anti-Immigrant: Sure. Call the illegal aliens whatever you like, but they’re still illegal aliens. And ILLEGAL MEANS ILLEGAL!

Agnapostate: No need to shout; I can hear just fine. Anyway, “illegal alien” just isn’t a very value-neutral term. Rarely are “legal aliens” spoken of. Why do you think that is? It’s because “alien” is a deliberately exclusionist word.

Anti-Immigrant: It’s quite right to exclude lawbreakers.

Agnapostate: Well, on that note, let’s get into the meat of the issue here. You oppose illegal immigration merely because it is illegal? So if it were legalized, you would have no objection to it?

Anti-Immigrant: Of course not. That sort of amnesty would be a reward for lawbreaking, and there need to be punishments for lawbreakers so that they pay for what they have done.

Agnapostate: Let me see if I’m following you. You apparently object to illegal immigration solely because it is illegal, and you oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants because it would reward lawbreaking. If we applied that logic to laws of times past, would you support enforcement of Jim Crow laws because they were laws, and resist changing them because that would reward those who have broken those laws instead of punishing them?

Anti-Immigrant: So now you’re comparing laws against illegal immigration to Jim Crow laws, and insinuating that people who support following the law are racists? That is offensive. Illegal is not a race; it is a crime!

Agnapostate: Again, no need to shout. But that was not the comparison I was making. I was showing you how your legal fetishism could be consistently applied to any law. It could be a race-based law, or it could be a law in an authoritarian country that curtailed freedom of expression. You wouldn’t support imprisonment of dissidents because the government had decided that it was the law, would you?

Anti-Immigrant: That’s not the point. If laws are wrong, people should work to change them, as protesters of those injustices you mentioned successfully have in the past. But active violation of standing laws undermines the bedrock of social order. It’s a promotion of chaos and indiscipline, and could lead to a state of affairs where everyone acts as they please instead of adhering to accepted moral standards.

Agnapostate: But you just said that if illegal immigration laws were removed, that would be a reward to lawbreakers. So wasn’t the eventual successful change of those laws that you agree were unjust a reward to lawbreakers, since they could no longer be prosecuted and punished?

Anti-Immigrant: It’s not the same.

Agnapostate: Why not?

Anti-Immigrant: It just isn’t. Unjust laws punish people that have not committed moral wrongs, while illegal immigration laws punish people that have broken into our country, our home, to steal from us. Honestly, this whole line of inquiry has been very silly. Would you support abolition of murder laws, since the murder crime rate would drop to zero if murder was legalized?

Agnapostate: You’re sidestepping my point, I see, but that’s quite a comparison. It’s an implication that the act of immigration itself, regardless of its legality, is intrinsically immoral. But where is the inherent immorality involved in crossing a border?

Anti-Immigrant: I just told you; illegals are here to steal from Americans.

Agnapostate: I’m going to ask you what you mean, but first, I’d like to point out a paradigm shift that’s just occurred. Before, you were insisting that illegal immigration and undocumented residence were morally wrong because of their unlawful nature. After I pointed out a couple of cases to you where you agreed that the law and the true moral standard were divergent, you switched to discussing the underlying immorality of the actual behavior of these people, saying that they’re “stealing.” You’re no longer insisting that something must be wrong just because it’s against the law.

[To be continued…]

Fair, overwhelmingly rightist forum members? :dunno:

[Mr. P]

Talk to yourself much, Chief??

[Agnapostate]

Talk to yourself much, Chief??

I don't know which part you didn't get, Cletus, but try downing a Ritalin and reading a little slower and more carefully next time.

[Solar]

This post is intended to be the first installment of a series dealing with the issue based on a made-up dialogue between me, since I'm a former far-right individual, and an average rightist anti-immigrant, since I happen to believe that I have a fairly good understanding of that perspective. Feel free to issue corrections and comments to points of dispute.



Fair, overwhelmingly rightist forum members? :dunno:

So I take it you are against laws?
Should we just allow Mexico to open their prison gates and flood the US with their unwanted?

Why is it the intellectually challenged always like to argue with their dumber side?

[Trigg]

So I take it you are against laws?
Should we just allow Mexico to open their prison gates and flood the US with their unwanted?

Why is it the intellectually challenged always like to argue with their dumber side?

Save yourself some aggravation and ignore Agna.

He thinks Indians should have the roam of the Continent and little things like borders and immigration laws should have no power over them.

[Solar]

Save yourself some aggravation and ignore Agna.


Isn't that the way it is, when responding to any lib?


He thinks Indians should have the roam of the Continent and little things like borders and immigration laws should have no power over them.

In other words, he's just your run of the mill anti-establishment 60s hippie?
Though, I think he's probably just a kid.:wink2:

[Agnapostate]

So I take it you are against laws?
Should we just allow Mexico to open their prison gates and flood the US with their unwanted?

Why is it the intellectually challenged always like to argue with their dumber side?

It seems like I already commented on part of this in the imaginary dialogue. I know the anti-immigrant contingency so well, so effectively, that I can anticipate and refute every single little talking point they want to regurgitate. I don't say this as a sign of my skill, but of their lack thereof.


Save yourself some aggravation and ignore Agna.

He thinks Indians should have the roam of the Continent and little things like borders and immigration laws should have no power over them.

Enough with the strawman, Pigg.


Isn't that the way it is, when responding to any lib?

In other words, he's just your run of the mill anti-establishment 60s hippie?

Though, I think he's probably just a kid.:wink2:

What "lib"? I am an anarchist.

[Solar]

It seems like I already commented on part of this in the imaginary dialogue. I know the anti-immigrant contingency so well, so effectively, that I can anticipate and refute every single little talking point they want to regurgitate. I don't say this as a sign of my skill, but of their lack thereof.



So refute it!

I asked if you are willing to let Mexico open their prisons and let them flood across the border?

[Pagan]

First off I am NOT anti-immigrant, second those who support complete open boarders are being dishonest by lumping illegal and legal immigrants together.

It's a complete insult for those who are abiding by the law and being punished while those breaking the law are being rewarded.

That is beyond offensive and since the Government has no respect for the rule of law why should anyone else respect it?

[darin]

this thread is chock-full of fail.

[Agnapostate]

So refute it!

I asked if you are willing to let Mexico open their prisons and let them flood across the border?

Why would anyone support the wholesale release of prisoners in any context? When it comes to releasing Mexican prisoners into the U.S., that would jeopardize the lower status-unrelated crime rate that illegal immigrants/undocumented residents currently have in comparison to citizens.


First off I am NOT anti-immigrant, second those who support complete open boarders are being dishonest by lumping illegal and legal immigrants together.

It's a complete insult for those who are abiding by the law and being punished while those breaking the law are being rewarded.

That is beyond offensive and since the Government has no respect for the rule of law why should anyone else respect it?

Why are you repeating comments exactly along the lines of my caricatured anti-immigrant? Isn't it a complete insult that some minority people had to be punished for breaking Jim Crow laws while others don't have to undergo segregation today?


this thread is chock-full of fail.

It is now...

[Pagan]

<snip>
Why are you repeating comments exactly along the lines of my caricatured anti-immigrant? Isn't it a complete insult that some minority people had to be punished for breaking Jim Crow laws while others don't have to undergo segregation today?

<snip>


So because I find it extremely offensive that criminals are being rewarded and those who abide by the Rule of Law are shit on I'm "anti-immigrant"?

OK if you say so :uhoh:

Where you born this ignorant or did you have to work at it? :lame2:

[Noir]

So is your Avatar telling folks to go back to Europe ironic self-satire or just some silly hypocrisy?

[DragonStryk72]

This post is intended to be the first installment of a series dealing with the issue based on a made-up dialogue between me, since I'm a former far-right individual, and an average rightist anti-immigrant, since I happen to believe that I have a fairly good understanding of that perspective. Feel free to issue corrections and comments to points of dispute.



Fair, overwhelmingly rightist forum members? :dunno:

Nope. Another in a long line of "Ooh, look how smart I am!" bullshit pieces. Go start your next thread that'll be generally dismissed.

[Agnapostate]

dp

[Agnapostate]

So because I find it extremely offensive that criminals are being rewarded and those who abide by the Rule of Law are shit on I'm "anti-immigrant"?

OK if you say so :uhoh:

Where you born this ignorant or did you have to work at it? :lame2:

I think part of the anger here is that I've essentially captured the rightist position and talking points with near-perfect accuracy. It must be disconcerting to realize that I've seen every little sad talking point that your puny mind can regurgitate and have found them all wanting.


So is your Avatar telling folks to go back to Europe ironic self-satire or just some silly hypocrisy?

"Ironic self-satire"? It's a demonstration of the consistent application of so-called "nativist" principles. The U.S. developed outward from systematic illegal immigration onto natives' land, so modern government officials of the U.S. are not in a position to claim absolute sovereign authority over that territory. It was acquired through dispossessing others.


Nope. Another in a long line of "Ooh, look how smart I am!" bullshit pieces. Go start your next thread that'll be generally dismissed.

If by "dismissed," you mean "visited by me, so that I can make a series of ignorant and amusing comments, and therefore not really dismissed at all," yeah, I look forward to all that.

[DragonStryk72]

You know what, fuck it. i'll engage this one.

Agnapostate: Why do you oppose immigration?

I am not. You are clearly, however, asking loaded questions that attempt to hem me into a single line of answers that you can use to attempt to look impressive.

Actually, my grandmother and grandfather on my dad's side are both immigrants from Dublin, Ireland, and came over quite legally, so to accuse me of being anti-immigrant is to say I am anti-self.

Agnapostate: “Illegal aliens” and “illegals” are rather loaded terms, aren’t they?

Says the one who started this dialogue with a loaded question. It is not loaded, illegal means to do that which is contrary to the law, hence why a person raping children is acting illegally.

Agnapostate: You do realize that there is a distinction between the two terms, don’t you?

I'm going to clip this off here, because your definition is in fact pointedly useless. A person who purposely allows their work visa to become invalid and remain in the country purposely to avoid deportation is no different than the person who jumps the fence, save that the fence jumper is at least more honest about it. So both fall under the heading of "illegals".

Agnapostate: Anyway, “illegal alien” just isn’t a very value-neutral term. Rarely are “legal aliens” spoken of. Why do you think that is? It’s because “alien” is a deliberately exclusionist word.

Incorrect. Actually, the term alien refers to any who come from outside of any country, or even the earth. alien in its most basic terminology is another word for "foreign":

alien
adj \ˈā-lē-ən, ˈāl-yən\
Definition of ALIEN

b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alien

Since "undocumented workers" belong to their country of origin, they are still aliens, and are also here illegally, hence the term Illegal alien. Since legal immigrants belong to the USA, they are not alien any longer. Also, for those who are here legally but are not seeking citizenship, we call them either tourists or foreigners.

Agnapostate: Well, on that note, let’s get into the meat of the issue here. You oppose illegal immigration merely because it is illegal? So if it were legalized, you would have no objection to it?

Ah, joy, another loaded question. Amazing how quickly you must resort to these to prove your point. First is the supposition that I am anti-illegal simply because there are laws against it, and the second is that, were the laws to be removed, then I would no longer be against it.

No, I do not oppose illegal immigration simply because it is illegal. We have solid reasons for limiting immigration in the first place, because were to simply throw open the gates, we would be overwhelmed swiftly. More than 1 million foreigners immigrate legally to the US each year, with us holding up a large number of applications on that basis alone, so that we can take in the number at a rate we can absorb.

Illegal immigrants coming into the country create several key problems. For one, they create essentially a "black market" in areas such as phony ids, social security numbers and the like. As well, not all of the illegals coming in are hard working, well-meaning folk either. Criminals get in too, and the problem increases. Just ask the people living near the section of Arizona that got taken over by Mexican gangs.

12,000,000 illegals also puts sort of a hurt on economies in the areas where they cluster together. It's completely natural for people with the same background to come together, hence why you end up with Jewish, Italian, and Black neighborhoods. However, illegals operate outside the tax system, getting jobs that would naturally have to go to American workers were the illegals not present. As well, many sign up for Social Security benefits they should not be getting, both by the incomes they are making off the books, and by not paying into the system as Americans are required to do.

Another danger is to the illegals themselves, actually. Many come into the country unable to speak English, the main language here, and since they are in a capacity where they cannot really go to the police, they many times get raked over the coals by the unscrupulous.

And don't feed me any of that "jobs Americans won't do" bullshit, cause I've done those jobs, and I am an American.

Amnesty would actually make the problem worse, as it would only embolden others, who will figure that they can get away with it too, and if we grant that amnesty, then they're pretty much right on that point.

Agnapostate: Let me see if I’m following you. You apparently object to illegal immigration solely because it is illegal, and you oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants because it would reward lawbreaking. If we applied that logic to laws of times past, would you support enforcement of Jim Crow laws because they were laws, and resist changing them because that would reward those who have broken those laws instead of punishing them?

Oh surprises of surprises, another loaded question for me. When will the shockers end?

Jim Crow laws were wrong, they were against the Consitution of the United States of America, and should have been struck down by the courts when they were written for blatantly being uncaonstitutional.


Agnapostate: But that was not the comparison I was making. I was showing you how your legal fetishism could be consistently applied to any law. It could be a race-based law, or it could be a law in an authoritarian country that curtailed freedom of expression. You wouldn’t support imprisonment of dissidents because the government had decided that it was the law, would you?

Well, were the argument against illegal immigration based on legal fetishism, that might be correct, but as previously explained that does not apply here.

I cannot answer for every other country on the planet, and of course I would not support laws that are in blatant disregard for the Constitution. Hell, I don't even support all of the laws we have now.

Actually, in those instances named, I would say that they should go to the local embassy to the US, and claim political asylum, since that's legal, and get help that way if no other way presents itself. The difference here is that the one going for asylum is asking through proper channels for permission, while the other skulks in the shadows, and evade known laws that are considered just by the entire civilized world.

Agnapostate: But you just said that if illegal immigration laws were removed, that would be a reward to lawbreakers. So wasn’t the eventual successful change of those laws that you agree were unjust a reward to lawbreakers, since they could no longer be prosecuted and punished?

I said no such thing. I stated that it would embolden future illegals, which is the truth. However, unjust laws must be overturned by their people, as it says in our own Declaration of Independence "but when a long train of abuses, and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security".

Agnapostate: You’re sidestepping my point, I see, but that’s quite a comparison. It’s an implication that the act of immigration itself, regardless of its legality, is intrinsically immoral. But where is the inherent immorality involved in crossing a border?

Again, off in lala land. As I started with, to be against immigration itself would be to be against myself. The ones who are causing strain on the enconomies are not the legal immigrants, but the illegals, so your first point is yet another attempt to bait, and then deflect criticism of it like a coward does, by hiding behind another question.

There is no inherent immorality to crossing a border when it is done legally, with the permission of those who own the land you are stepping into. I had to get a passport to travel to Ireland, even though, in technicality, I could put through paperwork to become an Irish citizen due to my grandparents' nationality (Ireland has some really strict filtering). I got permission to travel their, because while I am not a citizen, I do respect their rule of law.

It is by this same premise that, were I to walk into a public park during proper hours when it is open to the public, I am committing no immoral or illegal behavior. However, were I to slip in after dark, knowing full well that the park is not open at night, and evade the police in order to stay in the park when I know I am not supposed to be there, then yes, I am committing immoral and illegal behavior.

[Solar]

Why would anyone support the wholesale release of prisoners in any context? When it comes to releasing Mexican prisoners into the U.S., that would jeopardize the lower status-unrelated crime rate that illegal immigrants/undocumented residents currently have in comparison to citizens.



Your ability to string words together, merely proves your inability to make them connect.
To translate, you are nothing but a bloviating fool!

You claim we don't need borders, yet what are prison walls, but borders separating a certain class of people.

Just like the borders between Mexico and America, they are their to separate a certain class of people, people that have differing laws and cultures.

The term immigration, means to move from your native habitat, but if that habitat is alien and inhospitable, then you prepare yourself, in this case by learning the language, culture, and laws.

Let me ask you this, if an immigrant comes to this Country, do you not expect them to follow the law of the land?
Like buying a home, or do you prefer they merely move into your neighbors home without permission?

Well, lets start with the law that states they go through a process of naturalization, meaning they learn the laws and the language, including our history.
Or do you prefer that the Nation assimilate to the Mexicans way of life, like poverty and corruption?

I know this may be hard for you, but we are a Nation of laws, if you don't like them, then you have an option, an option not open to everyone in the World, you have the option to leave.

Ya know, I came here looking for intelligent conversation, you my simple friend, are not helping my quest.

[Pagan]

I think part of the anger here is that I've essentially captured the rightist position and talking points with near-perfect accuracy. It must be disconcerting to realize that I've seen every little sad talking point that your puny mind can regurgitate and have found them all wanting.

<snip>



Really?

It's blatantly obvious that you're only Parroting what you're told since you cannot address the facts. The fact being criminals are being rewarded while those who abide by the law are being shit on.

So tell me this Slick, if the Rule of Law means nothing why do we have them?

Come on, use that Brain Housing Group.

[Solar]

Really?

It's blatantly obvious that you're only Parroting what you're told since you cannot address the facts. The fact being criminals are being rewarded while those who abide by the law are being shit on.

So tell me this Slick, if the Rule of Law means nothing why do we have them?

Come on, use that Brain Housing Group.

Even Agnaprostate' name (Libertarian Communist) is an oxymoron, how is it possible to give gov complete control over your life, yet be a Libertarian?

Me thinks this guy isn't dealing with a full deck.:laugh:

[Pagan]

Even Agnaprostate' name (Libertarian Communist) is an oxymoron, how is it possible to give gov complete control over your life, yet be a Libertarian?

Me thinks this guy isn't dealing with a full deck.:laugh:

:clap:

Yeah it is painfully obvious that he really has no comprehension due to extreme ignorance or insanity. I myself am forming the opinion that he's suffering from ignorance AND insanity :laugh2:

[Solar]

:clap:

Yeah it is painfully obvious that he really has no comprehension due to extreme ignorance or insanity. I myself am forming the opinion that he's suffering from ignorance AND insanity :laugh2:

OUCH!! Ignorance and Insanity? A double whammy!

I think we can add Inanity to that as well.

I'll bet he even hates this little icon...:salute:

[Nukeman]

Enough with the strawman, Pigg.



What "lib"? I am an anarchist.How was her post a "strawman"?? Come on you know it is your only posting position!!!!


I think part of the anger here is that I've essentially captured the rightist position and talking points with near-perfect accuracy. It must be disconcerting to realize that I've seen every little sad talking point that your puny mind can regurgitate and have found them all wanting.



"Ironic self-satire"? It's a demonstration of the consistent application of so-called "nativist" principles. The U.S. developed outward from systematic illegal immigration onto natives' land, so modern government officials of the U.S. are not in a position to claim absolute sovereign authority over that territory. It was acquired through dispossessing others.



If by "dismissed," you mean "visited by me, so that I can make a series of ignorant and amusing comments, and therefore not really dismissed at all," yeah, I look forward to all that.Tell me agna what does it take to be a "NATIVE" in your book, how many years should one have lineage to a country before they are "native". Is it 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years.

Please tell us agna because if your going to throw out an arbitray number of time I would like to know........

[Palin Rider]

The headline of this thread reminds me of Mark Wahlberg Talks to Animals.

rQwXoU140G8

[Agnapostate]

I am not. You are clearly, however, asking loaded questions that attempt to hem me into a single line of answers that you can use to attempt to look impressive.

It's interesting that you're already commencing along the lines of the imaginary rightist that I inserted into my dialogue, which solidifies my belief that I have an accurate understanding of the way their minds work.


Actually, my grandmother and grandfather on my dad's side are both immigrants from Dublin, Ireland, and came over quite legally, so to accuse me of being anti-immigrant is to say I am anti-self.

Oh, from my perspective, all persons of European descent who adopt anti-immigrant stances are engaging in quite comical behavior. You're no different than the rest.


Says the one who started this dialogue with a loaded question. It is not loaded, illegal means to do that which is contrary to the law, hence why a person raping children is acting illegally.

I would daresay that the more important issue in such a case is that a person raping children is acting immorally, not illegally. If the law is the only mechanism you possess for gauging whether child rape is wrong, you have a nonexistent moral compass. Are you unable to differentiate between the illegal act of child rape and illegal traffic offenses, for example?


I'm going to clip this off here, because your definition is in fact pointedly useless. A person who purposely allows their work visa to become invalid and remain in the country purposely to avoid deportation is no different than the person who jumps the fence, save that the fence jumper is at least more honest about it. So both fall under the heading of "illegals".

Actually, it's an important point, because it contrasts very sharply with the stereotype of the illegal and undocumented as deliberately avoiding all registration for no apparent reason. It implies an initial willingness to comply with registration guidelines. The subsequent unwillingness could either be attributed to a cavalier indifference as to whether one was subject to deportation or not, or to limitations on continued legal residence that left illegal residence as the only solution.


Incorrect. Actually, the term alien refers to any who come from outside of any country, or even the earth. alien in its most basic terminology is another word for "foreign":

Since "undocumented workers" belong to their country of origin, they are still aliens, and are also here illegally, hence the term Illegal alien. Since legal immigrants belong to the USA, they are not alien any longer. Also, for those who are here legally but are not seeking citizenship, we call them either tourists or foreigners.

It's a matter of associated connotations. Negative images and stereotypes are associated with the word "alien," which is why it is used even when the word "immigrant" is not any more etymologically inaccurate, simply because proponents of its use want to convey specific value judgments and opinions. They shouldn't accept it to be adopted as a value-neutral term, however, or insist on its usage by all persons discussing the issue; that is an example of question begging and insisting that one's opinions be accepted before debate on them has occurred.


Ah, joy, another loaded question. Amazing how quickly you must resort to these to prove your point. First is the supposition that I am anti-illegal simply because there are laws against it, and the second is that, were the laws to be removed, then I would no longer be against it.

Interestingly, your progression to this point along the road laid by my imaginary rightist has given every indication that you don't see any underlying moral issue in walking from one side of an invisible line to the other, or are at least unable to articulate it.


No, I do not oppose illegal immigration simply because it is illegal. We have solid reasons for limiting immigration in the first place, because were to simply throw open the gates, we would be overwhelmed swiftly. More than 1 million foreigners immigrate legally to the US each year, with us holding up a large number of applications on that basis alone, so that we can take in the number at a rate we can absorb.

I'll explain to you some of the dynamics that you don't seem to understand. The three primary points of origin for immigrants are Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador, which southern Mexico in particular being a point of origin despite the fact that it is northern Mexico that is closer to the U.S. They therefore come from the historical region of Mesoamerica. The migration patterns of Mesoamericans have been caused by a convergence of several authoritarian policies. The first and most residual is the historical oppression and disempowerment of Native Americans that was and is a hallmark of European colonialism, which is the cause of modern Indians remaining among the rural peasantry and lower class urban workforces of Mesoamerican countries. The second is the enactment of trade policies that exacerbate international wage differentials. The 1994 Mexican economic crisis that occurred in the wake of NAFTA led to the devaluation of the peso, which lowered its worth relative to the dollar.

While the upper class white Mexican government were eager proponents of NAFTA, the working and lower classes, characterized by higher levels of Indian racial admixture, were generally strongly opposed (along with opposition to CAFTA in Central America), with the sharpest manifestation of opposition coming through the violent insurrection that was launched in the southernmost and poorest Mexican state of Chiapas by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Spanish; Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional; EZLN), dominated by Tzotzil Maya.

The internationally competitive markets of various Western countries developed under shields of state protectionism that involved tariffs and quotas, consistent with the integral role of government in the capitalist economy. This nurtured the gradual maturity of infant industries, maximizing dynamic comparative advantage in the long run. Conversely, the maize industry at the core of the greatest civilizations of Mesoamerica was damaged by the flood of subsidized cheap U.S. imported product, which less supported or entirely unsubsidized small-scale agrarian producers could not compete against, for the very good reason that the residual effects of colonialism had created a significant disparity between the descendants of the perpetrators and the descendants of the victims. The most fervent adherent of free market capitalist philosophy has no reason not to agree with Marx’s observation that the history of the modern economy "is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire."

So, in my view, in the absence of the elimination of capitalism, the solution is the reduction of international wage differentials by enactment of "fair trade" globalization policies, avoiding the limitations of autarky while still gaining the comparative advantages that so-called "free trade" offers, and indeed, maximizing dynamic comparative advantage.


Illegal immigrants coming into the country create several key problems. For one, they create essentially a "black market" in areas such as phony ids, social security numbers and the like.

This is not a well-conceived point, since illegal immigrants' interest in black market products is contingent upon their unlawful status. They need to purchase phony documents in order to avoid detection, a problem that would not exist if they possessed legal status. You've seized upon a problem caused by illegality to argue for the perpetuation of that illegality.


As well, not all of the illegals coming in are hard working, well-meaning folk either. Criminals get in too, and the problem increases. Just ask the people living near the section of Arizona that got taken over by Mexican gangs.

My paternal family is from the El Paso area, and I had a maternal cousin executed by traffickers in Guatemala, so there's really no need to urge me towards the anecdotal reports of others. The belief in high rates of immigrant criminal activity is a common misconception fostered by tabloidism and focus on anecdotal cases rather than statistical analysis of large data sets. However, appropriate consultation of the latter reveals empirical research that disproves that myth. Indeed, while there's dispute as to the effects of illegal immigrants/undocumented residents on the economy and domestic labor markets, there's essentially an empirical consensus that immigration, even illegal immigration and undocumented residency, is not associated with status-unrelated higher crime rates.

1. In terms of a statewide analysis, we could refer to Butcher and Piehl's Crime, Corrections, and California - What Does Immigration Have to Do with It? (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf).


We find that the foreign-born, who make up about 35 percent of the adult population in California, constitute only about 17 percent of the adult prison population. Thus, immigrants are underrepresented in California prisons compared to their representation in the overall population. In fact, U.S.- born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men.

The difference only grows when we expand our investigation. When
we consider all institutionalization (not only prisons but also jails, halfway
houses, and the like) and focus on the population that is most likely to
be in institutions because of criminal activity (men ages 18–40), we find
that, in California, U.S.-born men have an institutionalization rate that
is 10 times higher than that of foreign-born men (4.2% vs. 0.42%). And
when we compare foreign-born men to U.S.-born men with similar age
and education levels, these differences become even greater. Indeed, our
evidence suggests that increasing educational requirements in the provision of visas would have very little effect in the criminal justice arena.

2. Butcher and Piehl's Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199822)17:3%3C457::AID-PAM4%3E3.0.CO;2-F/abstract):


Public concerns about the costs of immigration and crime are high, and sometimes overlapping. This article investigates the relationship between immigration into a metropolitan area and that area's crime rate during the 1980s. Using data from the Uniform Crime Reports and the Current Population Surveys, we find, in the cross section, that cities with high crime rates tend to have large numbers of immigrants. However, controlling for the demographic characteristics of the cities, recent immigrants appear to have no effect on crime rates. In explaining changes in a city's crime rate over time, the flow of immigrants again has no effect, whether or not we control for other city-level characteristics. In a secondary analysis of individual data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), we find that youth born abroad are statistically significantly less likely than native-born youth to be criminally active.

3. Reid et al's The immigration–crime relationship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX8-4FM3X0N-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c77c33f8b5f8d755f1ffa3fb9ec021f5&searchtype=a):


Despite popular commentary claiming a link between immigration and crime, empirical research exploring this relationship is sparse. Especially missing from the literature on immigration and crime is a consideration of how immigration affects rates of crime at the macro-level. Although individual-level studies of immigrant criminality and victimization tend to demonstrate that immigrants typically engage in less crime than their native-born counterparts, the effect of immigration on aggregate criminal offending is less clear. In this research, we attempt to address this weakness in the literature by examining the effects of aspects of immigration on crime rates in metropolitan areas. We combine 2000 US Census data and 2000 Uniform Crime Report data to explore how the foreign-born population influences criminal offending across a sample of metropolitan areas. After controlling for a host of demographic and economic characteristics, we find that immigration does not increase crime rates, and some aspects of immigration lessen crime in metropolitan areas.

4. Rumbaut's Undocumented Immigration and Rates of Crime and Imprisonment:
Popular Myths and Empirical Realities (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Rumbaut%20-%20Undocumented%20Immigration%20Crime%20and%20Impr isonment.pdf):


As Table 1 shows, 3 percent of the 45.2 million males age 18-39 were in federal or state prisons or local jails at the time of the 2000 census (a total of over 1.3 million, coinciding with official prison statistics). However, the incarceration rate of the U.S.-born (3.51 percent) was five times the rate of the foreign-born (0.68 percent). The latter was less than half the 1.71 percent rate for non-Hispanic white natives, and seventeen times less than the 11.6 percent incarceration rate for native black men. The advantage for immigrants vis-à-vis natives applies to every ethnic group without exception.

5. Rumbaut et al.'s Debunking the Myth of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- and Second-Generation Young Men (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=403), which reiterates the point:


Of particular interest is the finding that the lowest incarceration rates among Latin American immigrants are seen for the least educated groups: Salvadorans and Guatemalans (0.52 percent), and Mexicans (0.70 percent). These are precisely the groups most stigmatized as "illegals" in the public perception and outcry about immigration.

6. Hagan and Palloni's Sociological Criminology and the Mythology of Hispanic Immigration and Crime (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3097078):


Our sociological knowledge of crime is fragmented and ineffective in challenging and correcting mistaken public perceptions, for example, linking immigration and crime. These misperceptions are perpetuated by government reports of growing numbers of Hispanic immigrants in U.S. prisons. However, Hispanic immigrants are disproportionately young males who regardless of citizenship are at greater risk of criminal involvement. They are also more vulnerable to restrictive treatment in the criminal justice system, especially at the pre-trial stage. When these differences are integrated into calculations using equations that begin with observed numbers of immigrants and citizens in state prisons, it is estimated that the involvement of Hispanic immigrants in crime is less than that of citizens. These results cast doubt on the hypothesis that immigration causes crime and make more transparent the immigration and criminal justice policies that inflate the rate of Hispanic incarceration. This transparency helps to resolve a paradox in the picture of Mexican immigration to the United States, since by most measures of well-being, Mexican immigrants are found to do as well and sometimes better than citizens.

7. On the subject of violent crime, homicide specifically, there is Kubrin and Ousey's Immigration and homicide in urban America: what's the connection? (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?chapterid=1791227&show=pdf)


Findings – Cities with greater immigrant concentration have lower homicide rates. There is a significant and fairly strong positive relationship between immigration and gang-related homicides.

Value – This analysis with disaggregated homicide adds to the findings that immigration is not associated with increased crime. Its finding of a correlation between immigration and gang-related homicides points to the next question that needs to be addressed with appropriate data.


:dunno:


12,000,000 illegals also puts sort of a hurt on economies in the areas where they cluster together. It's completely natural for people with the same background to come together, hence why you end up with Jewish, Italian, and Black neighborhoods.

This is rather vague; feel free to elaborate on this point. It reads as though you have some sort of problem with large aggregations of ethnic minorities, though. I'm sure that was entirely unintentional.


However, illegals operate outside the tax system,

This is another fact contingent upon unlawful status, so it's a rather poor example. At this point, however, it's worth bringing up a branch of labor economics called labor market segmentation or dual labor market theory. My The Economics of Labor Markets textbook summarizes it in this way:


The idea of labor market segmentation is that strong barriers to entry prevent certain groups of workers from effectively competing for jobs in a given market...

Duel labor market theory posits that the labor market is segmented into a primary labor market and a secondary labor market. The primary sector consists of the good jobs in the labor market, meaning those that offer high wages, good working conditions, employment stability, chances of promotion, and equity and due process in the administration of work rules. Primary jobs are typically found in forms that are large in size, unionized, or have a superior technology. A key feature of employment in these firms is their well-developed internal labor markets, owing to the substantial amount of on-the-job training in firm-specific skills that is required of the workers. Because of the substantial amount of time and money that primary firms invest in their workers, these firms screen very carefully the persons hidred into the entry level positions in the internal labor market, hoping to find persons possessing traits such as reliability, discipline, company loyalty, an ability to be a member of the company "team," and an ability to learn quickly on the job.

The secondary sector contains the bad or undesirable jobs on the labor market. These low-paying, "dead-end" jobs offer little in the way of promotion prospects or job security and little protection from the arbitrary or unilateral exercise of management's authority to discipline or fire workers. Secondary jobs are typically found in smaller firms that lack the capital assets to have an extended internal labor market, or that are in industries such as retail trade and services where the production technology is such that the product can be produced without much firm-specific on-the-job training. Because firms in the secondary market do not offer much training or have substantial job ladders, the wages they pay are low, as are the incentives for job stability among the employees.

The division between the primary and secondary labor markets that is useful for our purposes is between the formal and informal sectors. The division is marked by registration criteria, most importantly the fact that applicants for employment within the formal labor market are required to possess certain identifying documents to submit employment eligibility verification (I-9) forms, and illegal immigrants will not possess social security numbers, and undocumented residents the same, or perhaps numbers invalid for employment. So there is an obvious diminution of tax revenue in that there are severe artificial constraints on income caused by unlawful status, which restricts mobility into the formal labor market. Beyond that, there are constraints on human capital acquisition because of the same population's frequent inability to obtain post-secondary education and training. Other than that, they will pay the same sales, gasoline, and possibly property taxes that everyone else does, but will pay income taxes only if they work in the formal labor market, and are not required to do so if they do not.

So extrapolating and inferring from the benefits of legal immigration in the state of Georgia, as we can from Undocumented Immigrants in Georgia: Tax Contribution and Fiscal Concerns (http://www.gbpi.org/pubs/garevenue/20060119.pdf), we find this:


The question lawmakers attempt to answer is: Do undocumented immigrants pay enough in taxes to cover the services used? For undocumented immigrants, the answer is unclear. However, for legal immigrants, studies have shown that first generation immigrants pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits. The same does not hold true for state taxes and services, however, as first generation immigrants often use more in services than they pay in taxes. However, the descendants of the first-generation immigrant correct that pattern and contribute more in taxes at both the federal and state level than they consume in services at both levels. Each generation successively contributes a greater share due to increased wages, language skills, and education.

That is what would be expected when artificial constraints on dual labor market mobility are removed.


getting jobs that would naturally have to go to American workers were the illegals not present.

I find this very unlikely, as the U.S. domestic labor market is characterized by an inordinately high demand for low-skilled labor, and there will always be a given amount of equilibrium structural unemployment in the capitalist economy due to the need to maintain a reserve army of labor anyway.


As well, many sign up for Social Security benefits they should not be getting, both by the incomes they are making off the books, and by not paying into the system as Americans are required to do.

Also contingent on unlawful status, and not entirely true anyway. In the formal labor market, workers are required to submit I-9 forms, which includes submission of social security numbers. To use your words, "they create essentially a 'black market' in areas such as phony ids, social security numbers and the like." If unlawful workers are using phony social security numbers that belong to others or belong to no one, more often than not, they would be unable to collect the benefits. Indeed, this has created a phenomenon of billions of dollars of unused benefits either accumulating in the accounts of others or stockpiling in federal coffers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html


Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the "earnings suspense file" in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

Social Security officials do not know what fraction of the suspense file corresponds to the earnings of illegal immigrants. But they suspect that the portion is significant.

In the informal labor market, of course, workers are not eligible for Social Security benefits, regardless of their legal status.


Another danger is to the illegals themselves, actually. Many come into the country unable to speak English, the main language here, and since they are in a capacity where they cannot really go to the police, they many times get raked over the coals by the unscrupulous.

This is also contingent on their illegal status, and is a reason for higher crime rates, since a healthy fear of John Law provides a disincentive for the illegal/undocumented to make police reports. It's truly remarkable how many deficiencies of illegal status itself you've cited as reasons for continuing and perhaps expanding it.


And don't feed me any of that "jobs Americans won't do" bullshit, cause I've done those jobs, and I am an American.

I'm not interested in cliches, but I'm also not interested in your anecdotal storytelling. Peer-reviewed empirical data only, please.


Amnesty would actually make the problem worse, as it would only embolden others, who will figure that they can get away with it too, and if we grant that amnesty, then they're pretty much right on that point.

And the abolition of Jim Crow laws emboldened those who wanted to break them while they existed, didn't it? Abandon the legal fetishism and start making accurate points.


Oh surprises of surprises, another loaded question for me. When will the shockers end?

I'm increasingly certain that you don't know what the definition of a "loaded question" is.


Jim Crow laws were wrong, they were against the Consitution of the United States of America, and should have been struck down by the courts when they were written for blatantly being uncaonstitutional.

While you mentioned that they were "wrong," it's not clear if you meant their moral wrongness, since you seemed so much more focused on their unconstitutionality. Is this an insinuation that you would have supported their continuation if they had been constitutional? Or will you perhaps concede that enforcement of them was immoral despite the fact that they were "the law"?


Well, were the argument against illegal immigration based on legal fetishism, that might be correct, but as previously explained that does not apply here.

I can't say that I have seen that explanation. Could you reiterate it?


I cannot answer for every other country on the planet, and of course I would not support laws that are in blatant disregard for the Constitution. Hell, I don't even support all of the laws we have now.

So you're still adhering to legal fetishism, I see, merely appealing to higher laws without questioning their morality.


Actually, in those instances named, I would say that they should go to the local embassy to the US, and claim political asylum, since that's legal, and get help that way if no other way presents itself. The difference here is that the one going for asylum is asking through proper channels for permission, while the other skulks in the shadows, and evade known laws that are considered just by the entire civilized world.

Elaborate on your definition of "the entire civilized world." Also elaborate on your explanation for your employment of argumentum ad populum logical fallacies even if "the entire civilized world" actually included a numerical majority, since I daresay that "the entire civilized world" would have supported numerous social institutions now regarded as antiquated and immoral in their own heydays.


I said no such thing. I stated that it would embolden future illegals, which is the truth.

How would there be "future illegals" if border crossing was decriminalized? There could not be illegal immigrants any more than there are Cuban illegal immigrants at present, for example.


However, unjust laws must be overturned by their people, as it says in our own Declaration of Independence "but when a long train of abuses, and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and provide new guards for their future security".

That is not an underlying moral assessment, but still a reference to another quasi-legal document. It also says nothing as to the morality of enforcing unjust laws.


Again, off in lala land. As I started with, to be against immigration itself would be to be against myself.

That applies to you no more than any other Euro-American.


The ones who are causing strain on the enconomies are not the legal immigrants, but the illegals, so your first point is yet another attempt to bait, and then deflect criticism of it like a coward does, by hiding behind another question.

But your idiotic vagueness, whenever it has manifested itself in more concrete points, has been systematically refuted throughout this point of mine, so which premises or arguments can now support this conclusion of yours about "illegals" causing "strain on the enconomies"?


There is no inherent immorality to crossing a border when it is done legally, with the permission of those who own the land you are stepping into. I had to get a passport to travel to Ireland, even though, in technicality, I could put through paperwork to become an Irish citizen due to my grandparents' nationality (Ireland has some really strict filtering). I got permission to travel their, because while I am not a citizen, I do respect their rule of law.

It is by this same premise that, were I to walk into a public park during proper hours when it is open to the public, I am committing no immoral or illegal behavior. However, were I to slip in after dark, knowing full well that the park is not open at night, and evade the police in order to stay in the park when I know I am not supposed to be there, then yes, I am committing immoral and illegal behavior.

I'm afraid I don't see the immorality involved, because I usually attribute immoral status to behaviors that cause harm, and I'm unaware of how merely being in a public park at night is harmful. It merely seems to be adherence to the same legal fetishism you've been pushing this entire time. But apart from that, it would be so much simpler to leave the park open. I'd also like to point out that the undocumented residents who overstay visas are exempt from this metaphor, since they don't "slip in," which was why I noted that there was an important difference; you've now noted that yourself with this appeal to imagery.


Your ability to string words together, merely proves your inability to make them connect.
To translate, you are nothing but a bloviating fool!

You claim we don't need borders, yet what are prison walls, but borders separating a certain class of people.

Just like the borders between Mexico and America, they are their to separate a certain class of people, people that have differing laws and cultures.

The term immigration, means to move from your native habitat, but if that habitat is alien and inhospitable, then you prepare yourself, in this case by learning the language, culture, and laws.

Let me ask you this, if an immigrant comes to this Country, do you not expect them to follow the law of the land?
Like buying a home, or do you prefer they merely move into your neighbors home without permission?

Well, lets start with the law that states they go through a process of naturalization, meaning they learn the laws and the language, including our history.
Or do you prefer that the Nation assimilate to the Mexicans way of life, like poverty and corruption?

I know this may be hard for you, but we are a Nation of laws, if you don't like them, then you have an option, an option not open to everyone in the World, you have the option to leave.

Ya know, I came here looking for intelligent conversation, you my simple friend, are not helping my quest.

This is an amusing enough post, LOL'ar, but unfortunately, it contains little in the way of concrete content, which I suppose might match your cranial capacities. This is just a diatribe against Mexican nationals without redeeming content, and implies that every single Mexican national is acclimated to "poverty and corruption." There's no reason it couldn't apply just as effectively to legal Mexican immigrants, since you seem to imply that it is applicable to every single Mexican citizen. It also contains rather un-subtle ethnic tendencies. Do you think you could refer to more concrete empirical realities, such as the numerous studies that I cited?


Really?

It's blatantly obvious that you're only Parroting what you're told since you cannot address the facts. The fact being criminals are being rewarded while those who abide by the law are being shit on.

So tell me this Slick, if the Rule of Law means nothing why do we have them?

Come on, use that Brain Housing Group.

And as I said, Chafin', it's blatantly obvious that rescinding Jim Crow laws rewarded the criminals that broke them while those who abided by those laws were shit on, isn't it? If the Rule of Law means nothing, why were those Jim Crow laws rescinded?

Or is the Brain Apartmenting Unit too small and broken to see the consequences of the consistent application of your own logic?


Even Agnaprostate' name (Libertarian Communist) is an oxymoron, how is it possible to give gov complete control over your life, yet be a Libertarian?

Me thinks this guy isn't dealing with a full deck.:laugh:

LOL'ar, I'm glad that you're parroting a name that I made up, but unfortuantely, your political ignorance isn't nearly as enheartening. The term "libertarian" acquired widespread use by the anarchist movement to shield themselves from anti-anarchist legislation. It was first written in a political context in an 1857 letter of the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque. The pseudo-libertarians along the lines of Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick who have misappropriated that term in the U.S. have been outmatched by more than a century.


:clap:

Yeah it is painfully obvious that he really has no comprehension due to extreme ignorance or insanity. I myself am forming the opinion that he's suffering from ignorance AND insanity :laugh2:

LOL, Chafin', you and LOL'ar wouldn't happen to be two hands of the same imbecile, would you? Even a normal circle jerk isn't this moronic and intellectually feeble. I mean, seriously, why do you suck so much at debating? Pick up a used logic book from Amazon or something. :lol:


How was her post a "strawman"?? Come on you know it is your only posting position!!!!

Tell me agna what does it take to be a "NATIVE" in your book, how many years should one have lineage to a country before they are "native". Is it 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, or 1000 years.

Please tell us agna because if your going to throw out an arbitray number of time I would like to know........

Well, damn, a daisy chain of idiots ain't a daisy chain of idiots unless Pukecan sidles along to piss on everything. I've made it very clear in the past that I occasionally suggest that Europeans be repatriated to Europe as illegal aliens because that is what the consistently applied logic of the right would demand. If they think this inhumane or "racist," well, illegal is a crime and not a race, ain't that right? :dunno:

[Nukeman]

Well, damn, a daisy chain of idiots ain't a daisy chain of idiots unless Pukecan sidles along to piss on everything. I've made it very clear in the past that I occasionally suggest that Europeans be repatriated to Europe as illegal aliens because that is what the consistently applied logic of the right would demand. If they think this inhumane or "racist," well, illegal is a crime and not a race, ain't that right? :dunno:
And you still didn't answer the question!!! It really doesn't take that much thought on your part to tell us what YOU think the proper time frame is to be a native!!!! come on "anusprostate" how many years.....????

Last I cheked there are BORDERS to determine where a country stops and another starts!!!!!

[Solar]

Sorry, having issues with this format.

[Solar]

Agnaprostate[/B];439690]It's interesting that you're already commencing along the lines of the imaginary rightist that I inserted into my dialogue, which solidifies my belief that I have an accurate understanding of the way their minds work.



Oh, from my perspective, all persons of European descent who adopt anti-immigrant stances are engaging in quite comical behavior. You're no different than the rest.



I would daresay that the more important issue in such a case is that a person raping children is acting immorally, not illegally. If the law is the only mechanism you possess for gauging whether child rape is wrong, you have a nonexistent moral compass. Are you unable to differentiate between the illegal act of child rape and illegal traffic offenses, for example?



Actually, it's an important point, because it contrasts very sharply with the stereotype of the illegal and undocumented as deliberately avoiding all registration for no apparent reason. It implies an initial willingness to comply with registration guidelines. The subsequent unwillingness could either be attributed to a cavalier indifference as to whether one was subject to deportation or not, or to limitations on continued legal residence that left illegal residence as the only solution.



It's a matter of associated connotations. Negative images and stereotypes are associated with the word "alien," which is why it is used even when the word "immigrant" is not any more etymologically inaccurate, simply because proponents of its use want to convey specific value judgments and opinions. They shouldn't accept it to be adopted as a value-neutral term, however, or insist on its usage by all persons discussing the issue; that is an example of question begging and insisting that one's opinions be accepted before debate on them has occurred.



Interestingly, your progression to this point along the road laid by my imaginary rightist has given every indication that you don't see any underlying moral issue in walking from one side of an invisible line to the other, or are at least unable to articulate it.



I'll explain to you some of the dynamics that you don't seem to understand. The three primary points of origin for immigrants are Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador, which southern Mexico in particular being a point of origin despite the fact that it is northern Mexico that is closer to the U.S. They therefore come from the historical region of Mesoamerica. The migration patterns of Mesoamericans have been caused by a convergence of several authoritarian policies. The first and most residual is the historical oppression and disempowerment of Native Americans that was and is a hallmark of European colonialism, which is the cause of modern Indians remaining among the rural peasantry and lower class urban workforces of Mesoamerican countries. The second is the enactment of trade policies that exacerbate international wage differentials. The 1994 Mexican economic crisis that occurred in the wake of NAFTA led to the devaluation of the peso, which lowered its worth relative to the dollar.

While the upper class white Mexican government were eager proponents of NAFTA, the working and lower classes, characterized by higher levels of Indian racial admixture, were generally strongly opposed (along with opposition to CAFTA in Central America), with the sharpest manifestation of opposition coming through the violent insurrection that was launched in the southernmost and poorest Mexican state of Chiapas by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Spanish; Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional; EZLN), dominated by Tzotzil Maya.

The internationally competitive markets of various Western countries developed under shields of state protectionism that involved tariffs and quotas, consistent with the integral role of government in the capitalist economy. This nurtured the gradual maturity of infant industries, maximizing dynamic comparative advantage in the long run. Conversely, the maize industry at the core of the greatest civilizations of Mesoamerica was damaged by the flood of subsidized cheap U.S. imported product, which less supported or entirely unsubsidized small-scale agrarian producers could not compete against, for the very good reason that the residual effects of colonialism had created a significant disparity between the descendants of the perpetrators and the descendants of the victims. The most fervent adherent of free market capitalist philosophy has no reason not to agree with Marx’s observation that the history of the modern economy "is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire."

So, in my view, in the absence of the elimination of capitalism, the solution is the reduction of international wage differentials by enactment of "fair trade" globalization policies, avoiding the limitations of autarky while still gaining the comparative advantages that so-called "free trade" offers, and indeed, maximizing dynamic comparative advantage.



This is not a well-conceived point, since illegal immigrants' interest in black market products is contingent upon their unlawful status. They need to purchase phony documents in order to avoid detection, a problem that would not exist if they possessed legal status. You've seized upon a problem caused by illegality to argue for the perpetuation of that illegality.



My paternal family is from the El Paso area, and I had a maternal cousin executed by traffickers in Guatemala, so there's really no need to urge me towards the anecdotal reports of others. The belief in high rates of immigrant criminal activity is a common misconception fostered by tabloidism and focus on anecdotal cases rather than statistical analysis of large data sets. However, appropriate consultation of the latter reveals empirical research that disproves that myth. Indeed, while there's dispute as to the effects of illegal immigrants/undocumented residents on the economy and domestic labor markets, there's essentially an empirical consensus that immigration, even illegal immigration and undocumented residency, is not associated with status-unrelated higher crime rates.

1. In terms of a statewide analysis, we could refer to Butcher and Piehl's Crime, Corrections, and California - What Does Immigration Have to Do with It? (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf).



2. Butcher and Piehl's Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199822)17:3%3C457::AID-PAM4%3E3.0.CO;2-F/abstract):



3. Reid et al's The immigration–crime relationship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WX8-4FM3X0N-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c77c33f8b5f8d755f1ffa3fb9ec021f5&searchtype=a):



4. Rumbaut's Undocumented Immigration and Rates of Crime and Imprisonment:
Popular Myths and Empirical Realities (http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Rumbaut%20-%20Undocumented%20Immigration%20Crime%20and%20Impr isonment.pdf):



5. Rumbaut et al.'s Debunking the Myth of Immigrant Criminality: Imprisonment Among First- and Second-Generation Young Men (http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=403), which reiterates the point:



6. Hagan and Palloni's Sociological Criminology and the Mythology of Hispanic Immigration and Crime (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3097078):



7. On the subject of violent crime, homicide specifically, there is Kubrin and Ousey's Immigration and homicide in urban America: what's the connection? (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?chapterid=1791227&show=pdf)



:dunno:



This is rather vague; feel free to elaborate on this point. It reads as though you have some sort of problem with large aggregations of ethnic minorities, though. I'm sure that was entirely unintentional.



This is another fact contingent upon unlawful status, so it's a rather poor example. At this point, however, it's worth bringing up a branch of labor economics called labor market segmentation or dual labor market theory. My The Economics of Labor Markets textbook summarizes it in this way:



The division between the primary and secondary labor markets that is useful for our purposes is between the formal and informal sectors. The division is marked by registration criteria, most importantly the fact that applicants for employment within the formal labor market are required to possess certain identifying documents to submit employment eligibility verification (I-9) forms, and illegal immigrants will not possess social security numbers, and undocumented residents the same, or perhaps numbers invalid for employment. So there is an obvious diminution of tax revenue in that there are severe artificial constraints on income caused by unlawful status, which restricts mobility into the formal labor market. Beyond that, there are constraints on human capital acquisition because of the same population's frequent inability to obtain post-secondary education and training. Other than that, they will pay the same sales, gasoline, and possibly property taxes that everyone else does, but will pay income taxes only if they work in the formal labor market, and are not required to do so if they do not.

So extrapolating and inferring from the benefits of legal immigration in the state of Georgia, as we can from Undocumented Immigrants in Georgia: Tax Contribution and Fiscal Concerns (http://www.gbpi.org/pubs/garevenue/20060119.pdf), we find this:



That is what would be expected when artificial constraints on dual labor market mobility are removed.



I find this very unlikely, as the U.S. domestic labor market is characterized by an inordinately high demand for low-skilled labor, and there will always be a given amount of equilibrium structural unemployment in the capitalist economy due to the need to maintain a reserve army of labor anyway.



Also contingent on unlawful status, and not entirely true anyway. In the formal labor market, workers are required to submit I-9 forms, which includes submission of social security numbers. To use your words, "they create essentially a 'black market' in areas such as phony ids, social security numbers and the like." If unlawful workers are using phony social security numbers that belong to others or belong to no one, more often than not, they would be unable to collect the benefits. Indeed, this has created a phenomenon of billions of dollars of unused benefits either accumulating in the accounts of others or stockpiling in federal coffers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html



In the informal labor market, of course, workers are not eligible for Social Security benefits, regardless of their legal status.



This is also contingent on their illegal status, and is a reason for higher crime rates, since a healthy fear of John Law provides a disincentive for the illegal/undocumented to make police reports. It's truly remarkable how many deficiencies of illegal status itself you've cited as reasons for continuing and perhaps expanding it.



I'm not interested in cliches, but I'm also not interested in your anecdotal storytelling. Peer-reviewed empirical data only, please.



And the abolition of Jim Crow laws emboldened those who wanted to break them while they existed, didn't it? Abandon the legal fetishism and start making accurate points.



I'm increasingly certain that you don't know what the definition of a "loaded question" is.



While you mentioned that they were "wrong," it's not clear if you meant their moral wrongness, since you seemed so much more focused on their unconstitutionality. Is this an insinuation that you would have supported their continuation if they had been constitutional? Or will you perhaps concede that enforcement of them was immoral despite the fact that they were "the law"?



I can't say that I have seen that explanation. Could you reiterate it?



So you're still adhering to legal fetishism, I see, merely appealing to higher laws without questioning their morality.



Elaborate on your definition of "the entire civilized world." Also elaborate on your explanation for your employment of argumentum ad populum logical fallacies even if "the entire civilized world" actually included a numerical majority, since I daresay that "the entire civilized world" would have supported numerous social institutions now regarded as antiquated and immoral in their own heydays.



How would there be "future illegals" if border crossing was decriminalized? There could not be illegal immigrants any more than there are Cuban illegal immigrants at present, for example.



That is not an underlying moral assessment, but still a reference to another quasi-legal document. It also says nothing as to the morality of enforcing unjust laws.



That applies to you no more than any other Euro-American.



But your idiotic vagueness, whenever it has manifested itself in more concrete points, has been systematically refuted throughout this point of mine, so which premises or arguments can now support this conclusion of yours about "illegals" causing "strain on the enconomies"?



I'm afraid I don't see the immorality involved, because I usually attribute immoral status to behaviors that cause harm, and I'm unaware of how merely being in a public park at night is harmful. It merely seems to be adherence to the same legal fetishism you've been pushing this entire time. But apart from that, it would be so much simpler to leave the park open. I'd also like to point out that the undocumented residents who overstay visas are exempt from this metaphor, since they don't "slip in," which was why I noted that there was an important difference; you've now noted that yourself with this appeal to imagery.



This is an amusing enough post, LOL'ar, but unfortunately, it contains little in the way of concrete content, which I suppose might match your cranial capacities. This is just a diatribe against Mexican nationals without redeeming content, and implies that every single Mexican national is acclimated to "poverty and corruption." There's no reason it couldn't apply just as effectively to legal Mexican immigrants, since you seem to imply that it is applicable to every single Mexican citizen. It also contains rather un-subtle ethnic tendencies. Do you think you could refer to more concrete empirical realities, such as the numerous studies that I cited?



And as I said, Chafin', it's blatantly obvious that rescinding Jim Crow laws rewarded the criminals that broke them while those who abided by those laws were shit on, isn't it? If the Rule of Law means nothing, why were those Jim Crow laws rescinded?

Or is the Brain Apartmenting Unit too small and broken to see the consequences of the consistent application of your own logic?



LOL'ar, I'm glad that you're parroting a name that I made up, but unfortuantely, your political ignorance isn't nearly as enheartening. The term "libertarian" acquired widespread use by the anarchist movement to shield themselves from anti-anarchist legislation. It was first written in a political context in an 1857 letter of the French anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacque. The pseudo-libertarians along the lines of Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick who have misappropriated that term in the U.S. have been outmatched by more than a century.



LOL, Chafin', you and LOL'ar wouldn't happen to be two hands of the same imbecile, would you? Even a normal circle jerk isn't this moronic and intellectually feeble. I mean, seriously, why do you suck so much at debating? Pick up a used logic book from Amazon or something. :lol:



Well, damn, a daisy chain of idiots ain't a daisy chain of idiots unless Pukecan sidles along to piss on everything. I've made it very clear in the past that I occasionally suggest that Europeans be repatriated to Europe as illegal aliens because that is what the consistently applied logic of the right would demand. If they think this inhumane or "racist," well, illegal is a crime and not a race, ain't that right? :dunno:

Yeah, if you really think that is even possible.
You do realize that even Conservatives were known as Classic Liberals, but you won't find one of us today using the term.

[Gaffer]

And you still didn't answer the question!!! It really doesn't take that much thought on your part to tell us what YOU think the proper time frame is to be a native!!!! come on "anusprostate" how many years.....????

Last I cheked there are BORDERS to determine where a country stops and another starts!!!!!

what he doesn't take into account is even in the days of the Indians living here solely there were borders. tribes claimed certain territory for themselves and any other tribe entering that territory was an invader. Many wars were fought over land and hunting grounds.

[Pagan]

what he doesn't take into account is even in the days of the Indians living here solely there were borders. tribes claimed certain territory for themselves and any other tribe entering that territory was an invader. Many wars were fought over land and hunting grounds.

Don't let History, Truth or logic get in the way for it may dilute Agnapostate's fantasy world. :laugh:

You know it's all about "balance", I've got a good healthy streak of Anarchy in my but at the same time I'm not ignorant nor foolish to believe that society can live in "harmony" without the rule of law. But there are those like this fool Agnapostate who are unable to grasp "Reality".

Oh well ..............

[DragonStryk72]

It's interesting that you're already commencing along the lines of the imaginary rightist that I inserted into my dialogue, which solidifies my belief that I have an accurate understanding of the way their minds work.


Nope, not really. No amount of reasserting it will change that answer either. This is all just to feed your own ego.

Oh, from my perspective, all persons of European descent who adopt anti-immigrant stances are engaging in quite comical behavior. You're no different than the rest.

Well, good thing I'm not anti-immigrant then, isn't it? Especially when I explicitly stated as such in plain simple english. Only and idiot or an asshole would continue to try and assert as such.

Actually, supposition just occured. There are no Native Americans, and never have been, because according to you, no matter how far we get away from be European, it's just in our blood, so that mean that the Native Americans are actually Asians instead, since they did cross over the landbridge way back when.

I would daresay that the more important issue in such a case is that a person raping children is acting immorally, not illegally. If the law is the only mechanism you possess for gauging whether child rape is wrong, you have a nonexistent moral compass. Are you unable to differentiate between the illegal act of child rape and illegal traffic offenses, for example?

Maybe you should take some time, AP, and learn how to read basic english. Also, another crutch run of loaded question time. Does your intellectual cowardice never end?

Law should always have reason, and I used the example, since apparently I have to explain it to you, as a point that there are things that are clearly and inherently wrong.



Actually, it's an important point, because it contrasts very sharply with the stereotype of the illegal and undocumented as deliberately avoiding all registration for no apparent reason. It implies an initial willingness to comply with registration guidelines. The subsequent unwillingness could either be attributed to a cavalier indifference as to whether one was subject to deportation or not, or to limitations on continued legal residence that left illegal residence as the only solution.

Ah, so if I purchase something from a store, then take all the money from the cash register at gun point, I am merely securing my change? Their view of their actions is completely irrelevant, as they know that they can get their visas extended legally (as many do), but choose to violate laws they are quite clear on and agreed to abide by.

It's a matter of associated connotations. Negative images and stereotypes are associated with the word "alien," which is why it is used even when the word "immigrant" is not any more etymologically inaccurate, simply because proponents of its use want to convey specific value judgments and opinions. They shouldn't accept it to be adopted as a value-neutral term, however, or insist on its usage by all persons discussing the issue; that is an example of question begging and insisting that one's opinions be accepted before debate on them has occurred.

Ah, so alien can only be used as an insult right? Shall we ban the word white next? There is no way to have a value neutral conversation of any reason. Words do have value, positive and negative. I do not see alien the way you are seeing it, so maybe it is your own perceptions are prejudiced?

Interestingly, your progression to this point along the road laid by my imaginary rightist has given every indication that you don't see any underlying moral issue in walking from one side of an invisible line to the other, or are at least unable to articulate it.

There is no inherent immorality to crossing a border when it is done legally. Learn to read, it helps alot. Borders are agreed upon by not just one country, but by both, so that Canada and Mexico know where the borders are as well. And since you're so into loaded questions, here's one: So you would enforce your tyranny on three nations just to not have borders?

When a man enters your home without permission, he is break and entering, because he was violated the "border" of your home. It is the same, but on larger scale.

I'll explain to you some of the dynamics that you don't seem to understand. The three primary points of origin for immigrants are Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador, which southern Mexico in particular being a point of origin despite the fact that it is northern Mexico that is closer to the U.S. They therefore come from the historical region of Mesoamerica. The migration patterns of Mesoamericans have been caused by a convergence of several authoritarian policies. The first and most residual is the historical oppression and disempowerment of Native Americans that was and is a hallmark of European colonialism, which is the cause of modern Indians remaining among the rural peasantry and lower class urban workforces of Mesoamerican countries. The second is the enactment of trade policies that exacerbate international wage differentials. The 1994 Mexican economic crisis that occurred in the wake of NAFTA led to the devaluation of the peso, which lowered its worth relative to the dollar.

While the upper class white Mexican government were eager proponents of NAFTA, the working and lower classes, characterized by higher levels of Indian racial admixture, were generally strongly opposed (along with opposition to CAFTA in Central America), with the sharpest manifestation of opposition coming through the violent insurrection that was launched in the southernmost and poorest Mexican state of Chiapas by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (Spanish; Ejercito Zapatista de Liberacion Nacional; EZLN), dominated by Tzotzil Maya.

The internationally competitive markets of various Western countries developed under shields of state protectionism that involved tariffs and quotas, consistent with the integral role of government in the capitalist economy. This nurtured the gradual maturity of infant industries, maximizing dynamic comparative advantage in the long run. Conversely, the maize industry at the core of the greatest civilizations of Mesoamerica was damaged by the flood of subsidized cheap U.S. imported product, which less supported or entirely unsubsidized small-scale agrarian producers could not compete against, for the very good reason that the residual effects of colonialism had created a significant disparity between the descendants of the perpetrators and the descendants of the victims. The most fervent adherent of free market capitalist philosophy has no reason not to agree with Marx’s observation that the history of the modern economy "is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire."

So, in my view, in the absence of the elimination of capitalism, the solution is the reduction of international wage differentials by enactment of "fair trade" globalization policies, avoiding the limitations of autarky while still gaining the comparative advantages that so-called "free trade" offers, and indeed, maximizing dynamic comparative advantage.

So "bullcrap, bullcrap, bullcrap". You would enforce tyranny on all the world. Communist government requires the use of excessive government. It cannot exist otherwise, and the larger scale, the more infrastructure needed to support it.

This is not a well-conceived point, since illegal immigrants' interest in black market products is contingent upon their unlawful status. They need to purchase phony documents in order to avoid detection, a problem that would not exist if they possessed legal status. You've seized upon a problem caused by illegality to argue for the perpetuation of that illegality.

You know, for someone who keeps throwing out the big words with reckless abandonment about economics, you forget supply and demand. If there were no demand for fake immigration documents, there would be no supply of fake immigration documents. It's a symbiotic relationship, both feed off of one another to survive.

That's why there's not a thriving underworld pokemon card industry, there just isn't any demand for it.

My paternal family is from the El Paso area, and I had a maternal cousin executed by traffickers in Guatemala, so there's really no need to urge me towards the anecdotal reports of others. The belief in high rates of immigrant criminal activity is a common misconception fostered by tabloidism and focus on anecdotal cases rather than statistical analysis of large data sets. However, appropriate consultation of the latter reveals empirical research that disproves that myth. Indeed, while there's dispute as to the effects of illegal immigrants/undocumented residents on the economy and domestic labor markets, there's essentially an empirical consensus that immigration, even illegal immigration and undocumented residency, is not associated with status-unrelated higher crime rates.

I never said HIGH rates, I said the criminals do come in. Unless you can prove that NO criminals of any kind make it into the country illegally, then my point stands firm.

The Mexican gangs that crossed the border and took part of Arizona are also a matter of public record. So again, my point stands firm.

This is rather vague; feel free to elaborate on this point. It reads as though you have some sort of problem with large aggregations of ethnic minorities, though. I'm sure that was entirely unintentional.

Okay, there are these things called human beings, see, and they tend to like each other, and so they form these groups called friends families. Stop me when this starts going over your head.

Now, these friends, and families sometimes decide to move to new areas, where sometimes they do not currently have many friends or family, and so they look for people who are similar. This is occurs like Irish neighborhoods in New York City and Boston, where they simply grouped together.

There are not an infinite supply of jobs, AP, unless you have proof otherwise.

This is another fact contingent upon unlawful status, so it's a rather poor example. At this point, however, it's worth bringing up a branch of labor economics called labor market segmentation or dual labor market theory. My The Economics of Labor Markets textbook summarizes it in this way:

Yes, we get it, you found yet more obscure passages that don't really prove your point. Aren't you special?

Again, unless there are an infinite number of jobs available, this point is debunked. There has to be an effect, and yes, shit's harder cause they're doing illegal crap. It's not hard. They chose to commit an act they were fully aware was illegal, and wrong, period.

The division between the primary and secondary labor markets that is useful for our purposes is between the formal and informal sectors. The division is marked by registration criteria, most importantly the fact that applicants for employment within the formal labor market are required to possess certain identifying documents to submit employment eligibility verification (I-9) forms, and illegal immigrants will not possess social security numbers, and undocumented residents the same, or perhaps numbers invalid for employment. So there is an obvious diminution of tax revenue in that there are severe artificial constraints on income caused by unlawful status, which restricts mobility into the formal labor market. Beyond that, there are constraints on human capital acquisition because of the same population's frequent inability to obtain post-secondary education and training. Other than that, they will pay the same sales, gasoline, and possibly property taxes that everyone else does, but will pay income taxes only if they work in the formal labor market, and are not required to do so if they do not.

So extrapolating and inferring from the benefits of legal immigration in the state of Georgia, as we can from Undocumented Immigrants in Georgia: Tax Contribution and Fiscal Concerns (http://www.gbpi.org/pubs/garevenue/20060119.pdf), we find this:



That is what would be expected when artificial constraints on dual labor market mobility are removed.



I find this very unlikely, as the U.S. domestic labor market is characterized by an inordinately high demand for low-skilled labor, and there will always be a given amount of equilibrium structural unemployment in the capitalist economy due to the need to maintain a reserve army of labor anyway.

right, that's why there's never any unemployement of any scale.

Also contingent on unlawful status, and not entirely true anyway. In the formal labor market, workers are required to submit I-9 forms, which includes submission of social security numbers. To use your words, "they create essentially a 'black market' in areas such as phony ids, social security numbers and the like." If unlawful workers are using phony social security numbers that belong to others or belong to no one, more often than not, they would be unable to collect the benefits. Indeed, this has created a phenomenon of billions of dollars of unused benefits either accumulating in the accounts of others or stockpiling in federal coffers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

Ah, the 'well yeah I set the house on fire, but hey, their heating bill is lower' argument.

In the informal labor market, of course, workers are not eligible for Social Security benefits, regardless of their legal status.



This is also contingent on their illegal status, and is a reason for higher crime rates, since a healthy fear of John Law provides a disincentive for the illegal/undocumented to make police reports. It's truly remarkable how many deficiencies of illegal status itself you've cited as reasons for continuing and perhaps expanding it.



I'm not interested in cliches, but I'm also not interested in your anecdotal storytelling. Peer-reviewed empirical data only, please.

Says the person who used a wiki he himself wrote to try and prove his own point.

And the abolition of Jim Crow laws emboldened those who wanted to break them while they existed, didn't it? Abandon the legal fetishism and start making accurate points.

Not the same thing. Abolition of the laws removed their legality, it did not simply grant amnesty to a group while maintaining the laws. See the difference? We have to have immigration laws, we'd be overwhelmed otherwise, and so yes, that makes it illegal to enter this country outside of those laws.

I'm increasingly certain that you don't know what the definition of a "loaded question" is.

Well, just look at every question you ask, and start there.

While you mentioned that they were "wrong," it's not clear if you meant their moral wrongness, since you seemed so much more focused on their unconstitutionality. Is this an insinuation that you would have supported their continuation if they had been constitutional? Or will you perhaps concede that enforcement of them was immoral despite the fact that they were "the law"?

The Constitution was built on moral principle as well as legal principle, so it applies in both instances. Actually, that is what made the US a rarity, that it establish basic rights for the people, and limited the government's power over them.

I can't say that I have seen that explanation. Could you reiterate it?

It is not "legal fetishism". Really, learn to read, it's fundamental.

So you're still adhering to legal fetishism, I see, merely appealing to higher laws without questioning their morality.

Heck, I don't even support all of the laws we have now. Remember that? You should, since you quoted it. Borders exist everywhere, at your house, your car, you place of employment, your skin even is a borders. Violating any of these without having the permission to do so is immoral. The law follows that morality.

Elaborate on your definition of "the entire civilized world." Also elaborate on your explanation for your employment of argumentum ad populum logical fallacies even if "the entire civilized world" actually included a numerical majority, since I daresay that "the entire civilized world" would have supported numerous social institutions now regarded as antiquated and immoral in their own heydays.

Wow, time means nothing to you does it?

How would there be "future illegals" if border crossing was decriminalized? There could not be illegal immigrants any more than there are Cuban illegal immigrants at present, for example.

It can't be decriminalized, we would cease to have the support structures to have that many people in here when we get in here. The only other route close to it where our country survives is amnesty, and that, as I've said repeatedly, that amnesty will embolden future illegals just like it did back in the 80s when Reagan did it.

That is not an underlying moral assessment, but still a reference to another quasi-legal document. It also says nothing as to the morality of enforcing unjust laws.

How is immigration law unjust?

That applies to you no more than any other Euro-American.

I am not a Euro-American. I'm an American by birth,I've never lived in Europe.

But your idiotic vagueness, whenever it has manifested itself in more concrete points, has been systematically refuted throughout this point of mine, so which premises or arguments can now support this conclusion of yours about "illegals" causing "strain on the enconomies"?

As soon as you show me the conclusive proof that there are infinite jobs in all markets.

I'm afraid I don't see the immorality involved, because I usually attribute immoral status to behaviors that cause harm, and I'm unaware of how merely being in a public park at night is harmful. It merely seems to be adherence to the same legal fetishism you've been pushing this entire time. But apart from that, it would be so much simpler to leave the park open. I'd also like to point out that the undocumented residents who overstay visas are exempt from this metaphor, since they don't "slip in," which was why I noted that there was an important difference; you've now noted that yourself with this appeal to imagery.

So then, I am allowed to, against your wishes, enter your home and live there? The edge of your property is a border by definition. It is immoral to completely disregard border laws, because you are essentially entering our home without permission. It would be just as immoral if I decided to just go live in Mexico by just crossing the border in and staying.

;

[jimnyc]

All that writing and it can be simplified down to this:

Follow the laws of entering the USA properly or face prosecution.
Follow the laws within the borders of the USA or face prosecution.
Or argue semantics and change absolutely nothing.

Ag, you can come up with the most intelligent response to this long debated argument, and it won't make a damn bit of difference. The USA and it's laws will NEVER be changing to reflect your stance.

[82Marine89]

This post is intended to be the first installment of a series dealing with the issue based on a made-up dialogue between me, since I'm a former far-right individual, and an average rightist anti-immigrant, since I happen to believe that I have a fairly good understanding of that perspective. Feel free to issue corrections and comments to points of dispute.

"BLAH, BLAH, BLAH"

Fair, overwhelmingly rightist forum members? :dunno:

Well Analprostrate, you load the argument by calling the other party Anti-Immigrant. That automatically shows your bias and makes everything you wrote a waste of bandwidth.