Immigration and the Right-Wing

I don't really have a problem with a "path to citizenship" for those illegally in the United States as long as it was serious. That is, it simply didn't involve paying a small fine then taking the citizenship oath (which is what some people seem to advocate).

For one, it would have to be over time.

1) Pay a serious amount of money. On the order of 2,000 dollars a year for five years before taking the oath of citizenship.

2) No arrests (much less convictions) for serious crimes.

3) No usage of U.S. public services during that time (aside from basic emergency medical care).

4) Person in the program would not be allowed to send money back to Mexico or anywhere outside the United States until after they became a citizen.

5) Demonstrate English proficiency (tested).

Five things I would require at minimum.

Fuckin' let 'em. "Howl louder! Just a few seconds more, we're taking names and locations. Yep, that's right... just a few seconds more..."

Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010

Not sure if this story has been verified yet or not, but if true this is going to heat things up a bit more down there.

This is actually sort of old news. Arpaio's been a target for the cartels for this reason for quite some time. And anyone who's pissing off the bad guys THAT large is a hero in Skin's book.

Interesting, I've never seen anything in the news about a price on his head up until now, although I can see how it is possible. Also SB 1070 hasn't even been on the books that long and wasn't signed into law until April 2010. Links?

Not much reliable about it to be found, but stories like it date back to at least '07. Again, keep in mind the proviso: Skin has no idea whether or not the stories are true -- the one below or the current one -- only that the stories aren't new.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2007/10/keystone_koppers_the_skinny_on.php

Instant recipe for comedy.
Why, just review this thread.

That's Rule #5. How's that dog you don't have in this hunt, Dicky? Looks from here like it's got a bum leg.

Country's full, but I would gladly support Nutbird's leaving to make room for someone who actually wants to work for a living.

...if you have a basic understanding of logic?

It's a false dilemma.


Look it up.

I find 1 offensive, but I have to admit it'd probably be beneficial. The Canadian Head Tax really hurt the Chinese at first, but now they're kicking whiteys ass all over the place. It'll be one of those trials that builds character.

2 is utter nonsense, considering how low the bar is to be arrested for anything. Piss off the wrong cop (or just a racist cop), and you're fucked.

3 doesn't really fly either. If they're paying taxes and kicking in an extra couple grand a year on top of that, they at least deserve a free library card.

There's no way to enforce 4. They'll get their friend to do it, or a co-worker, or a hobo.

5 is fine with me, though you might want to pass an "English is the official language of America" law first.

See?

I wonder how he got them to believe a prolapsed rectum from whistling was a disability??

That's rich. How, exactly, is it a false dilemma? It isn't; it's a statement of fact. The U.S. has no ethical obligation to accept the presence within its border of every single individual who wants to be here simply because the U.S. exists.

Skin already knows what a false dilemma is. It's a fallacy wherein the options related to a particular problem or scenario are deceptively narrowed to only two, one of which is nearly universally indefensible and the other of which is the option preferred by the one committing the false dilemma fallacy. Example: "Your car was stolen? Well, you either have to kill everyone who might have stolen it or just write it off."

In this debate, the false dilemma would go, "Your country is being drained of resources and jobs to the detriment of American citizens by foreign nationals? Well, you either have to deport them all (which it is implied cannot be done, rendering this a non-option) make them all legal or just accept it." (the latter two actually being the same option in effect if not in method).

Considering that illegal alien remittances account for tens of billions of dollars per year illegally removed from the U.S. economy, #1 is more than fair.

Tough shit. We have plenty of criminals of our own, there is no ethical argument for importing more.

Nope. That extra couple grand a year isn't payment, it's repayment.

Then freeze all remittances to Mexico. Simple.

Agreed.

That's nice, Dicky. Yes, Skin's sure your mama thinks you're a very special boy.

Then you lack imagination, here's one off the top of my head.

More violent offenders means fuller prisons, and therefore early release of non-violent drug offenders, and a de-facto decriminalizing of weed, and more liberty for everyone.

See how easy?

It's probably crap when you pick at it, but it doesn't matter, your claim was NO argument, and I just made one.

It is almost impossible to get a worker visa these days. They really should let up a little. :/

Not an ethical one. Decriminalizing weed is ethical enough, but not when it comes at the expense of good people being hurt or killed by illegal alien criminals. So no -- no ethical argument can be made.

Well, what if they weren't so good?
Like, maybe they kicked their dog once, or talked on a cellphone during a movie.
Come on, you pretend to be a rabid-right-winger on the internet, surely some pretext for bodily harm must warm your cockles.

You're getting farther and farther out on that limb, Dicky. And you keep your hands off my cockles.

You're grasping for straws, Dicky.

And I agree with 14thDoctor on point #3, provided that basic emergency health care and a free library card are all they get -- that free library card should help them with point number 5.

I dunno, legalized weed for everyone, in exchange for one dead Romulan senator, and the self respect of one Starfleet officer...sounds like a bargain to me.

Naturalization for my family cost us several thousand dollars. What you're asking is a joke. Still, it would show which ones are committed to getting the money and paying their way, and which ones just wanna be here to mooch off the system.

It's a false dilemma directed at the illegal immigrant.


You may as well tell them to eat cake.

When Skin asked:

Skin wasn't asking you to define whom you think the false dilemma is directed toward, but where the false dilemma is. You still haven't answered that question.

The false dilemma is asking the illegal immigrant to choose between two methods of coming to America, when one of those methods (your preferred method) is impossible. It's a false choice.


It's like telling me to take a TARDIS to work instead of riding the bus. I'd love to, but it aint gonna happen.

Romulans are generally worthless, and Sisko insisted he could live with it...

But back to the real world. Legalizing pot is fine, but American lives and livelihoods are too high a price to pay for it.

It's not impossible, merely difficult. It's more akin to asking you to drive yourself to work rather than jumping into my car uninvited. In point of fact, you're the one engaging in the False Dilemma -- no one is asking them to come at all.

Someone (Carolvs?) posted that chart a while back of how long it'll take you to immigrate depending on your circumstances. No skills, no family to sponsor you? Aint never gonna happen.

Wasn't Carolvs -- but I don't remember who it was, either.

I do not think you know what a false dilemma is. It certainly does not fit what you describe.